PayDay Financial, LLC named in class action over usurious interest rates

This is a Class Action Complaint brought to obtain declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of a class of individuals who responded to advertisements made by a group of affiliated South Dakota business entities offering consumer loans via the Internet. The lenders conspired to charge illegal interest rates and defraud consumers by stating that the lenders and collectors are exempt from United States laws because of an affiliation with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (“Tribe”). The loans had a minimum annual percentage rate (APR) of 89.68 o/o-ten times the legal limit-and up to 342.86 %. The usurious nature of the interest rates renders them void; similarly, the deceptive and misleading nature of the groups’ marketing materials and loan documents violate state consumer protection laws.

The Lending Defendants, PayDay Financial, LLC and Western Sky, LLP, marketed fast, accessible, low-barrier loans to Plaintiffs and members of the class; in doing so, they preyed upon individuals who needed access to money as quickly as possible in order to meet their most basic human needs. The Lending Defendants took advantage of the weak and necessitous position of their target consumers by charging astonishingly high interest rates knowing that people will do whatever it takes to provide food for their family or keep their home out of foreclosure–even if the measure would only last a short time. The Lending Defendants provided the proverbial “desperate measure” for the desperate times in which Plaintiffs and members of the class found themselves. Loan fees and interest rates were lower, but still usurious, for higher dollar amount loans thus incentivizing borrowers to take more money than they needed.

As alleged, the Lending Defendants know that their interest rates are usurious so they developed what they, upon information and belief, believe is a “legal loop hole”-requiring Plaintiff and members of the class to agree to an exculpatory clause that purportedly extinguishes any right the consumer has to apply United States law to the relationship. The loan agreements state that only the Tribe’s law will apply to the relationship between consumers and the Lending Defendants and the consumer may not sue in any court of the United States or any state. But the loan agreement has nothing to do with Tribal law. The Lending Defendants are South Dakota limited liability companies marketing and providing services to consumers throughout the United States using web servers located in the State of California.

As claimed, the Lending Defendants cannot avoid the courts and laws of South Dakota, Minnesota, Virginia, or Texas–or the courts and laws of any other state or the United States by the mere fact that its controlling owner is a member of an American Indian tribe. Employees are mostly tribal members and their primary place of business is on tribal land. Similarly, Defendants cannot contract away their duty to follow the laws of each and every state in which they do business. This lawsuit seeks to end the Lending Defendants’ illegal scheme to skirt the law and make consumers whole by returning Defendants’ ill-gotten profits to consumers they have harmed.

JPMorgan Chase named in class action lawsuit over interest charges on credit cards

This is a class action lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase & Co. (“JPMC”), and Chase Bank USA, N.A. (“CBUSA”) (collectively, “Chase” or “Defendants”) for charging their credit card account holders “interest” on their own positive credit balances, in breach of Chase’s Cardmember Agreement.

Chase’s Cardmember Agreement governs the relationship between Chase and their credit card account holders. The Cardmember Agreement contains a paragraph about Credit Balances which reads, “You may request a refund of any credit balance at any time. Otherwise, we will apply it to any new charges on your Account or provide the refund to you as required by law.” Nothing in the Cardmember Agreement discloses the existence of any fees or charges to the account holder relating to a positive credit balance.

On July 30, 2012, Plaintiff Epstein overpaid his Chase Marriott Rewards credit card bill by $0.67, thereby creating a positive credit balance. The credit balance remained on Plaintiff’s account until January 7, 2013, when Chase charged a $0.67 “interest” charge associated with the positive credit balance on Plaintiff Epstein’s account.

According to the complaint, Chase breached the Credit Balances provision of their Cardmember Agreement by simply taking the credit balance on Plaintiff Epstein’s credit card account. Chase had no right to take Plaintiff’s money.

As of December 31, 2011, Chase had over 65 million credit card account holders, and it has assessed credit balance “interest” charges to millions of their credit card customers.

Plaintiff Epstein asserts claims on behalf of himself, a nationwide class of millions of Chase credit card account holders, and a subclass of Chase credit card account holders in California for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, unjust enrichment, violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud, and as to the Subclass only, violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”).

Complaint: Chase 7-15-13

United States Seamless, Inc. and Kaycan Ltd named in class action lawsuit over defective siding

This is a consumer class action on behalf of all persons, organizations, municipalities, corporations and entities that own property which incorporated seamless steel siding (“Siding”) that was designed, manufactured, marketed, warranted, sold and/or distributed by United States Seamless, Inc. and KAYCAN Limited (“Defendants”).

Kaycan and USS markets their Siding as durable and warrant against rusting, blistering, chipping, peeling, or flaking, as well as certain other manufacturing defects. Defendants offer a Lifetime Non-Prorated, Transferable Limited Warranty for their Siding.

As alleged, the Siding manufactured and sold by Defendants Kaycan and USS is defectively designed and manufactured such that it peels within the original warranty period. The defects are so severe that Plaintiffs and Class Members must repair or replace their Siding sooner than reasonably expected, at significant cost. Moreover, Defendants’ Siding is uniformly defective such that Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ Siding fails well before the time period advertised, marketed, and guaranteed by Defendants.

Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that the Siding is defective and that such defects would cause damage to the homes of Plaintiffs and the Class Members. Moreover, Defendants concealed the defective nature of the Siding from the Plaintiffs and Class Members and refused to honor warranties on the Siding.

Samsung named in class action lawsuit over defects in Galaxy S mobile phone

As alleged in the complaint, Galaxy S mobile phones suffer from a software or hardware defect, which causes the phones to randomly freeze, shut down, and power-off while in standby mode, rendering the phones inoperable and unfit for their intended use and purpose.

After Samsung released the Galaxy S phones during the summer of 2010, consumers immediately contacted Samsung and Samsung’s authorized agents and resellers to complain about the defect. Consumers also have posted myriad complaints about the defect on Internet websites, including on Samsung’s own website. Samsung has admitted such a defect and suggested several alternate remedies to consumers, all without success.

According to the complaint, Samsung and its authorized agents and resellers provided Class members with ineffective and damaging “software updates” and phone resets and replacement Galaxy S phones suffering from the same defect. This inadequate  response has only perpetuated an endless cycle of futility for Plaintiff and for Class members and has not cured the defect or provided Class members a product that conforms to all express and implied warranties.

Samsung and its authorized agents and resellers have been unable or unwilling to repair the defect or offer Plaintiff and Class members a non- defective Samsung Galaxy S phone or reimbursement for the cost of such phone.

Plaintiff and Class members suffered injury and lost money or property as a result of purchasing a phone that repeatedly shuts off and loses data, purchasing a new phone just to ensure the ability to receive communications, and having expended time and resources addressing this issue with Samsung or its representatives without success. Samsung failed to remedy this harm, and Samsung earned and continues to earn substantial profits from selling defective Galaxy S phones.

Plaintiff brings this action against defendant Samsung on behalf of  California residents, who purchased a defective Samsung Galaxy S mobile phone.

Complaint: Samsung 7-23-13

Toyota investigated over faulty sliding doors on Sienna minivans

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.

Porsche investigated over faulty shifter cable in 911 and Cayman vehicles

Porshce Large

 

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

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.

Complaint:

CHECK ‘N GO named in class action lawsuit over charging unconscionable interest rates

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.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. named in class action lawsuit alleging underpayment of Producing Branch Sales Managers and Home Mortgage Consultants

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.

Align Technology, Inc. named in class action over sale of Invisalign® removable dental appliances

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.