Goodman Manufacturing Co named in class action lawsuit over sale of defective air conditioners

This is a class action brought on behalf of all persons in Arizona who purchased air conditioners, air handlers and heat pumps manufactured by Goodman Manufacturing Co., L.P. under the trade names Goodman® and Amana (hereinafter “Goodman Products”) between November 20, 2009 through November 20, 2013, who incurred damages as a result of having to repair their Goodman Products due to leakage of refrigerant.

Plaintiff purchased Goodman Products and experienced leakage of refrigerant caused by defective evaporator coils. Plaintiff incurred out of pocket expenses to purchase supplemental maintenance coverage for his Goodman Products to have technicians with expertise in HVAC products diagnose, repair and/or replace the defective parts, and replace the refrigerant when required.

As alleged, the refrigerant leakage is due to a defect in the design and manufacturing of the Goodman Products that existed from the date of manufacture.  Specifically, the Goodman Products contained defective evaporator coils that failed prematurely under normal use, causing refrigerant within the system to leak out.

As further alleged Defendants used copper evaporator coils in the Goodman Products that were too thin. This design and/or manufacture defect caused premature corrosion and holes or cracks in the evaporator coils, resulting in leakage of the refrigerant in the system. The defectively designed and/or manufactured evaporator coils could not withstand the higher pressure from the more environmentally friendly refrigerant that was required to be used by law, further exacerbating the leakage problem.

Complaint:Goodman 11-21-13

ConAgra named in class action lawsuit over labeling of Fleischmann’s Original 60% Whipped Vegetable Oil Spread and Orville Redenbacher’s Buttery Flavor Popcorn Oil

The class action lawsuit alleges that ConAgra, the maker of  Fleischmann’s Original 60% Whipped Vegetable Oil Spread and Orville Redenbacher’s Buttery Flavor Popcorn Oil, violated the law by misbranding its products as an “Excellent source of omega 3 ALA” and “0g Trans Fat.”

As alleged in the complaint, Defendant’s use of the “Excellent source of omega 3 ALA” and “0 g Trans Fat” label statements is unlawful because its products do not contain the required disclosure statement referring consumers to the nutrition panel for additional information about the excessively high levels of fat. This disclosure statement is required pursuant to 21 C.F.R. 101.13(h) and California law. Defendant’s Fleischmann’s Original 60% Whipped Vegetable Oil Spread and Orville Redenbacher’s Buttery Flavor Oil and the other Class Products contain more than 13g of fat per the applicable regulatory measuring amount of 50g of product, and therefore the disclosure statement required by 21 C.F.R. 101.13(h) is required when those products bear a nutrition content statement of any kind.

Plaintiffs allege that they reviewed the labels on the Purchased Products, reasonably  relied in substantial part on the labels, and were thereby deceived, in deciding to purchase these products. Moreover, the very fact that Defendants sold such misbranded products and did not disclose this fact to consumers is a deceptive act in and of itself. Plaintiffs would not have purchased products that are illegal to own or possess. Had Defendants informed Plaintiffs of this fact there would have been no purchases.

Costco named in class action lawsuit over sale of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) products

Costco Wholesale Corporation markets and arranges installation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) products at residential real property of its members. Company markets its HVAC services by, among other strategies, promising that it will (i) deliver the “ultimate in energy-efficient performance,” (ii) get the job done “right the first time,” and (iii) secure receipt of available rebates from the respective utility for installation of HVAC systems that satisfy industry-wide energy efficiency standards.

Plaintiff brings this action to challenge the Company’s deliberate fraudulent, tortious, misleading, and unfair business practices in its marketing and sales by which it reaps millions of dollars in ill-gotten profits from thousands of members who purchase purportedly energy efficient HVAC systems.

As alleged, Plaintiff challenges Company’s knowingly false statements that the HVAC systems it installs will entitle the member to the available rebates offered by the respective utility for energy efficient installations. Company’s knowingly false statements are a key component of the Company’s marketing strategy and contribute substantially to Company’s gross revenues and net income at the expense of members who suffer the damages of Company’s knowingly false statements.

Plaintiff and the Class have suffered actual and monetary injury as a result of Company’s wrongful practices and Company has been unjustly enriched by these practices.

Class:  All purchasers of HVAC systems from Defendants during the six years prior to this Complaint’s filing who failed to receive utility rebates due to Defendants’ failure to provide energy efficient systems as contracted.

Chrysler sued over failure to timely repair or replace Totally Integrated Power Module in certain vehicles

Chrysler

 

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of owners of the 2008 model year Chrysler 300, and 2011- 2012 model year Jeep Grand Cherokees, Dodge Durangos and Dodge Grand Caravans.

These vehicles are factory equipped with a Totally Integrated Power Module (TIPM) which is located in the vehicle engine compartment. The TIPM consists of a computer, relays, and fuses, and controls and distributes power to all of the vehicles’ electrical systems. These electrical systems include the vehicles’ safety systems, security system, ignition system, electrical powertrain as well as the vehicles’ comfort and convenience systems which include such components as the air bags, fuel pump, windshield wipers, headlights, turn signals, and power windows and doors.

The TIPM installed in Class Vehicles fails to reliably control and distribute power to various vehicle electrical systems and component parts. Typically, the defect manifests as an inability to reliably start the vehicle and progressively escalates to the vehicle failing to start all together and, in some instances, the vehicle stalling during operation. Vehicle owners also have problems with the fuel pump not shutting off and random and uncontrollable activity of the windshield wipers, alarm system, door locks, and airbags.

The problem is so widespread that the part is on national backorder, taking weeks and sometimes months for a replacement part to become available. Chrysler however, does not acknowledge the problem, leaving consumers, dealers and auto technicians to sort it out themselves. Consequently, consumers are stuck with inoperable vehicles for weeks and months on end, forced to pay for unnecessary repairs and car rental costs, and have to pay over $1,000 for the TIPM replacement not knowing whether the replacement part suffers from the same defect.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased or leased Chrysler vehicles equipped with the defective TIPM, or, in the alternative, on behalf of statewide classes of consumers who purchased or leased their Chrysler vehicles in California, Maryland, and Florida

Volkswagen named in class action over detective engine system that results in overconsumption of engine oil

Volkswagen big

 

According to the complaint, beginning on or before 2007, Volkswagen Group of America (“VW”) manufactured, sold and distributed certain models of vehicles that contain a detective engine system that results in overconsumption of engine oil, directly affecting the performance usage of the vehicle.

The models of vehicles with a defective engine system include at least the following: 2008-2011 Audi IT, 2008-2011 Audi A4, 2008-2011 Audi A5, 2008- 2011 Audi S5, 2008·2011 Audi Q5, 2007 Volkswagen EOS, 2007-2008 Volkswagen Passat, 2008 Volkswagen GTI, and 2009 Volkswagen Tiguan.

 

Complaint: VW 11-12-13

H&R Block named in class action over alleged defect in tax preparation software

Defendants have developed, marketed and sold their tax preparation  services and software with a “100% Satisfaction Money Back Guarantee.'”

Plaintiff and all other putative Class Members were the direct beneficiaries of the guarantee and received and relied upon such guarantee made by Defendants.

H&R Block Technology improperly filled out, improperly transmitted (or both) IRS Form 8863 used to claim educational credits. Form 8863 is used to claim tax credits for qualified expenses paid to postsecondary education institutions. There are two education credits: The American Opportunity credit, as well as the lifetime learning credit.

The IRS requires that Form 8863 be completely filled out. H&R Block left mandatory fields blank, resulting in widespread errors.

On information and belief, H&R Block failed to answer IRS form 8863 questions #22-26 with a “yes” or “no” response. The error affected returns prepared by Defendants which included filing form 8863 before February 22, 2013.  The error affecting returns has delayed the tax return of Plaintiff and putative members beyond the 21 day turnaround represented by Defendants.

H&R Block has confirmed its negligence in the preparation of forms filed before February 22, citing a change in the way the IRS processes certain yes or no questions on the form. It used to be an acceptable to leave a field blank to indicate “no,” but now preparers must enter an “N.,,3

The IRS has stated that Defendants’ tax-preparation software defect caused more than 600,000 returns prepared by Defendants to be filed incorrectly.

Walgreen named in class action over sale of joint supplement containing glucosamine

This is a class action brought on behalf of those who have purchased, in the State of Florida, a Walgreen Co. joint supplement containing glucosamine, chondroitin and/or other ingredients that were falsely labeled and represented to “rebuild cartilage.”

Walgreens sold a line of glucosamine and chondroitin supplements with the false promise and deceptive warranty that its products “rebuild cartilage.”   As alleged, Walgreens was fully aware, that it is physically and biologically impossible to “rebuild” cartilage that has been lost or damaged.

Walgreens sold the Walgreens Products throughout the State of Florida by taking advantage of consumers’ reasonable but unattainable desire to reverse the damage done to their cartilage.

The lawsuit seeks redress on behalf of all consumers in Florida who purchased Walgreens glucosamine and chondroitin supplements from October 2006 to December 2012 that were sold with a label promising that the product would “rebuild cartilage.”

Honest Tea named in class action lawsuit for being dishonest about product labeling

Honest Tea’s marketing and promotion of bottled Honest Tea Honey Green Tea is dishonest. This is a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Honest Tea Honey Green Tea (“Honey Green Tea”), which Defendants market as a source of antioxidant green tea flavonoids. According to the complaint, Honest Tea Honey Green Tea does not contain the amount of antioxidants touted on the label.

As alleged, Plaintiff purchased numerous bottles of Honey Green Tea, which did not contain the amount of “antioxidants green tea flavonoids” represented on the label. Independent testing by a laboratory retained by Plaintiff’s counsel determined that 16.9 fluid ounce bottles of Honey Green Tea contained an average of 186.7 mg of flavonoids per bottle. While Honest Tea claims on their website and in their “Keeping It Honest Mission Report” that they use “honesty and integrity” to craft their products, the testing showed that the total flavonoids per bottle is 24% below the “247 mg Antioxidants Green Tea Flavonoids Per Bottle” highlighted on the label.

The Complaint claims Honest Tea is cheating purchasers by providing less antioxidants than purchasers are paying for.

Eli Lilly named by an employee in a class action lawsuit over wage violations

This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated against Eli Lilly and Company and Lilly USA, LLC for its failure to pay salary incentives contracted for and earned by Plaintiff and other members of the Class.

The class consists of : All LILLY Fixed Duration Employees (“FOE’.’) who, during the class period, did not receive (1) a sales incentive (“VOB”), and/or (2) a Customer Value Metric (“CVM”), and/or (3) a Service Value Chain (“SVC”), and/or (4) the value of a Reward Recognition Trip (“RRT”), payments as a result of their scheduled termination date occurring before the completion of the time period used for calculating said amounts.

Lilly is a pharmaceutical company which is principally engaged in the design, development, manufacture, and selling of pharmaceutical products in the United States and throughout the world. LILLY is the tenth (10th) largest pharmaceutical company in the world.

Plaintiff was employed by LILLY as a Senior Sales Representative and was hired as a “Fixed Duration Employee” whose employment would end on a specified future date. Throughout Plaintiffs employment with LILLY. Plaintiff contracted for and received regular salary incentives for meeting certain individual and team goals. In fact, as part of its offer of employment to all Fixed Duration Employees, LILLY promised specific incentives to Plaintiff as additional components of her total salary package. Plaintiff and other Fixed Duration Employees received these incentives on a quarterly, bi-annual, or annual basis, depending on the type of salary incentive.

4LILLY also promised that Plaintiff would receive the incentives she earned through the end of her contractual term. However, when Plaintiffs employment term came to an end, LILLY failed to pay Plaintiff and other Fixed Duration Employees the incentives they had earned prior to their scheduled termination date.

Plaintiff brings this suit on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated to recover all damages resulting from LILLY’s failure to pay the incentives contracted for by LILLY and its Fixed Duration Employees.

PepsiCo settles class action lawsuit over deceptive labeling of Naked Juice

This lawsuit claims that Naked Juice violated certain state and federal laws and consumer protection statutes in connection with the advertising, labeling, or marketing of its Products as “100% Juice,” “100% Fruit,” “From Concentrate,” “All Natural,” “All Natural Fruit,” “All Natural Fruit + Boosts,” or “Non-GMO” (or Non-Genetically Modified Organism).  The lawsuit claims that the Eligible Products (see below) contain ingredients that are not “All Natural” and contain GMOs (or Genetically Modified Organisms).

If the Settlement is approved and becomes final, it will provide benefits to Class Members. Naked Juice will pay $9,000,000 to a Settlement Fund to make payments to Class Members who file valid claims by submitting a Claim Form at www.NakedJuiceClass.com.

Class members are entitled to make claims up to $45.00 without proof of purchase.

 

The products include:

• AÇAÍ MACHINE (formerly known as PURPLE MACHINE and RAIN FOREST AÇAÍ)

• APPLE

• APPLE CRANBERRY

• BERRY BLAST (formerly known as BERRY BLAST WELL BEING)

• BERRY PROBIOTIC

• BERRY VEGGIE (formerly known as BERRY VEGGIE MACHINE)

• BLACK AND BLUEBERRY (formerly known as BLACK AND BLUEBERRY RUSH)

• BLUE MACHINE

• CARROT

• CHAI SPICED CIDER

• CHERRY POMEGRANATE (formerly known as CHERRY POMEGRANATE POWER)

• CITRUS LEMONGRASS (REDUCED CALORIE) (formerly known as CITRUS LEMONGRASS)

• GOLD MACHINE

• GREEN MACHINE

• LYCHEE (REDUCED CALORIE)

• MANGO VEGGIE

• MIGHTY MANGO (formerly known as MIGHTY MANGO WELL BEING)

• O-J

• ORANGE CARROT

• ORANGE MANGO (formerly known as ORANGE MANGO MOTION)

• ORGANIC CARROT

• PEACH GUAVA (REDUCED CALORIE)

• PEACH MANGOSTEEN (formerly known as PEACH MANGOSTEEN BLISS)

• POMEGRANATE (formerly known as PLENTIFUL POMEGRANATE)

• POMEGRANATE AÇAÍ

• POMEGRANATE BLUEBERRY

• POWER-C MACHINE (formerly known as POWER-C)

• PROBIOTIC TROPICAL MANGO

• PROTEIN ZONE

• PROTEIN ZONE BANANA CHOCOLATE

• PROTEIN ZONE DOUBLE BERRY

• PROTEIN ZONE MANGO

• RAZALICIOUS

• RED MACHINE

• STRAWBERRY BANANA (formerly known as STRAWBERRY BANANA C and STRAWBERRY

BANANA WELL BEING)

• STRAWBERRY KIWI (formerly known as STRAWBERRY KIWI KICK)

• TANGERINE SCREAM

• TROPICAL (REDUCED CALORIE) (formerly known as TROPICAL C and TROPICAL)

• WATERMELON CHILL