Lawyers have initiated an investigation of claims that Toyota Sienna minivans have been installed with faulty sliding doors. According to the investigation, when parked on a slope, the sliding doors close automatically without warning, apparently due to a manufacturing defect that causes the mechanism to be unable to keep the door held in an open position when at an incline.
If you have had similar experiences, please share them by posting or contact us directly below.
Lawyers have initiated an investigation of a potential defect in the shifter cable of Porsche 911 and Cayman automobiles. According to the investigation, the shifter cables in these vehicles may be experiencing an abnormally high rate of failure. Failure of the shifter cable of cars under warranty are being covered by Porsche, but out of warranty vehicles require owners to pay to fix the problem.
Failure of the shifter cable may result in the inability to shift gears or get the car into gear. This is a safety hazard.
If you wish to discuss your legal rights with respect to this issue, please use the contact lawyer box below. Also, if you have had similar experiences, please share them by posting or contact us directly below.
Vital Pharmaceuticals named in class action over sale of Redline energy supplements
According to the complaint, Vital Pharmaceuticals doing business as VPX sold a variety of Redline products (“Product”) which are intended to provide energy, but instead result in negative health effects, which are not what consumers bargained for in exchange for their payment of the purchase price.
Several adverse reactions have been reported from consumers, such as the Plaintiff and members of the Class, who have purchased and consumed the Product, including, but not limited to, chills, excessive sweating, vomiting, convulsions, chest pains, and rapid heartbeat. Several purchasers have been hospitalized after consuming the Product.
As alleged, Vital Pharmaceuticals has known of the Product’s shortcomings for quite some time, and on numerous occasions—but alarmingly—has failed to act to adequately warn consumers of the unfitness of the Product, or provide adequate relief to the putative Class of consumers who purchased the Product.
Plaintiff contends that the Product does not work as impliedly warranted and also violated California’s consumer protection statutes through its omissions and misrepresentations.
Southwestern & Pacific Specialty Finance, Inc. (dba CHECK ‘N GO) was named in a class action lawsuit challenging its practices making payday and installment loans to California consumers under the business name at unconscionable interest rates of 200% and higher.
CHECK ‘N GO operates approximately 176 retail stores in California, from which it markets these loans to distressed, unsophisticated, low income working Californians who cannot afford them and, once caught in CHECK ‘N GO’s net, face increased financial and personal distress as they struggle to pay the exorbitant interest and other charges and deal with CHECK ‘N GO’s collections.
The class consists of all persons who while residing in California obtained an installment loan from Check ‘n Go for $2,600 for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes within four years of the date this case was filed.
According to the complaint CHECK ‘N GO’s loan terms were procedurally and substantively unconscionable and illegal, in violation of Financial Code section 22302 and Civil Code section 1670.5. CHECK ‘N GO’s loan terms were procedurally unconscionable in that, among other things, CHECK ‘N GO used a standardized form adhesion contract consisting of prolix complex financial terms that were not explained to borrowers. CHECK ‘N GO’s loan terms were substantively unconscionable in that, among other things, CHECK ‘N GO charged an exorbitant interest rate – 200%; failed to exercise any reasonable diligence to verify consumers had the financial means to repay the installments in accordance with the terms of the loan and imposed a payment method – cash and electronic fund transfers – that virtually eliminated the risk of non-payment to CHECK ‘N GO while allowing CHECK ‘N GO to wreak havoc on consumer’s bank accounts and financial wellbeing.
This class action arises from WFB’s failure to compensate its Producing Branch Sales Managers and Home Mortgage Consultants as agreed pursuant to WFB’s Incentive Compensation Plan.
The class consists of all individuals in the United States who worked for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage a division of Defendant, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as a Producing Branch Sales Managers or Home Mortgage Consultant during 2011, and continuing through the present, and who were not paid amounts due under WFHM’s Incentive Compensation Plan.
According to the complaint, the vast majority of Producing Sales Branch Managers and Home Mortgage Consultants perform at a level which entitles them to 69 bps under the Standard Commission Schedule. Despite this, Producing Sales Branch Managers and Home Mortgage Consultants are being paid a flat 43 bps thereby depriving them of commissions to which they are entitled, in breach of the Plan.
This is a class action lawsuit against Align Technology, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of Invisalign® removable dental appliances made of a plastic resin (Aligners) advertised and promoted to treat patients with orthodontic or restorative dentistry issues marketed by Defendant as an alternative to traditional metal braces, which claims its -treatable cases- include “serious malocclusionl.”
As alleged, the Invisalign® system does not treat Plaintiff and class members’ malocclusions, which require other dental procedures to correct their dental condition such as crowns. Defendant offers its Invisalign® system of aligners to treat the misalignment of teeth and malocclusions through dentists and orthodontists that work in conjunction with defendant’s trained specialists leading consumers to believe that the Aligners would cure their dentistry issues such as malocclusions. In actuality, the Aligners cannot treat malocclusions.
Defendant has utilized and utilizes misleading marketing practices as a means of promoting the Aligners without the capacity to perform as claimed. Moreover, Defendant has also falsely advertised, misled and deceived consumers like Plaintiff into believing the Invisalign® system can treat their malocclusions to their detriment. These misrepresentations play a substantial part in influencing Plaintiff’s and other consumers’ decisions to purchase the falsely advertised and marketed aligners, decisions made upon reliance on defendant’s misrepresentation prominently displayed in its advertising, including brochures placed in dentists and orthodontists offices, advertisements, and on its website, www.invisalign.com.
Defendant has received warning letters from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) in connection with the advertising and marketing of its Aligners based on its failure to inform the public of some severe side effects caused from wearing the Aligners.
Onity Inc. is the manufacturer of electronic door locks used primarily in hotels, motels, and other lodging businesses. The primary purpose of these locks is to secure lodging rooms and protect the occupants and their possessions. As alleged in the complaint, Onity Locks are defective and fail to perform as promised, leaving lodging guests, at risk.
The Onity Locks were defective and, as a result, experts in the industry have described the process of hacking them and gaining access to guestrooms containing the Onity Locks as, “stupidly simple.” As has been demonstrated repeatedly, including for public view across the Internet, the Onity Locks can be easily opened with a homemade hacking device, created with readily available, store-bought parts, rendering the locks worthless.
RadioShack agreed to pay up to $5.3 million to settle alleged violations of a federal law barring a credit card’s expiration date from being printed on a sales receipt.
The suit, claimed a violation of the Fairness and Accurate Transaction Act that Congress passed in 2003 and took effect Jan. 1, 2005. The law restricts the information that can be printed on a receipt, barring the display of an expiration date and limiting the credit card number to five digits.
The settlement is limited to those customers making purchases between Aug. 24, 2010, and Nov. 11, 2011, and calls for $10 vouchers good for store or online purchases to be issued to those whose claims are approved. The vouchers will be distributed as bar codes and must be used within six months of being issued. Claim forms must be returned by Aug. 27 to be eligible for the settlement. A maximum of three vouchers can be used for a single purchase, the settlement said. If the settlement vouchers exceed $5.3 million, they will be reduced pro rata, it said. Settlement notices will be sent to about 3.5 million customers via direct mail, while another 1 million get one via email, according to the settlement.
If you purchased a pre-paid calling card where Touch-Tel was the distributor of the pre-paid calling card, anywhere in the United States, between August 27, 2004, and May 20, 2013, you could receive benefits from a class action settlement.
This summary notice informs you about the settlement of Crescencio Galvez, et al. v. Touch-Tel U.S.A., L.P. d/b/a Touch-Tel USA, LLC, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:08-CV-05642-RGK (JCx). Crescencio Galvez and Guadalupe Galvez represent a class of pre-paid calling card customers who purchased certain calling cards distributed by Touch-Tel between August 27, 2004, and May 20, 2013, other than for purposes of re-sale. A list of those cards can be reviewed by accessing www.Touch-TelSettlement.com.
If you submit a claim form you can receive a Refund PIN or Calling Card in $2.00 increments that can be used to make telephone calls, at the rate of 10 cents/minute to any telephone number within the United States and Canada, and 25 cents/minute to any telephone number in any of the following countries: Mexico, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Ecuador and El Salvador. There shall be a total cap of $375,000 on the dollar amount of Refund PINs. Individual claims are capped at $20.00 based on 40% of the face value of your Touch-Tel calling card purchases during the Class Period. The Refund PIN or calling card will be good for a period of one year from the date of distribution. You can submit a Proof of Claim Form online at www.Touch-TelSettlement.com
Pepperidge Farm markets, advertises, sells and distributes “Natural” Cheddar Goldfish® Crackers
According to the complaint, Defendant made and continues to make false and misleading claims regarding its representation that the Product is “Natural.” Defendant has mistakenly or misleadingly represented that the Product is “Natural,” when in fact, it is not, because it contains bio-engineered food, more commonly known as Genetically Modified Organisms (“GMOs”) in the form of GMO soy and/or soy derivatives.
As alleged, Defendant’s “Natural” statement prominently displayed on the Product’s packaging and/or labeling is false, misleading, and likely to deceive reasonable consumers, such as Plaintiff and members of the Class, because the Product is not “Natural,” due to the presence of soybean oil in the Product.
GMOs are plants that grow from seeds in which DNA splicing has been used to place genes from another source into a plant. Contrary to Defendant’s express or implied representations, the Product uses plants or plant derivatives grown or created from GMOs. Defendant’s marketing of the Product as “Natural” is false, because GMOs’ genetic makeup has been altered through biotechnology to exhibit characteristics that do not otherwise occur in nature.
The complaint seeks an Order prohibiting Defendant from including genetically modified ingredients in its “Natural” Products or, in the alternative, from representing the Products are “Natural” when they are not, because bio-engineered soy is not “Natural.”