The complaint, which seeks compensatory damages of over $5 Million, claims that the unlawful acts of Jones, the NFL and the Cowboys resulted in approximately 400 fans who purchased tickets and traveled to the game being denied a seat, despite having spent thousands of dollars in tickets and travel expenses to attend the Super Bowl. The complaint also alleges that Jones and the Cowboys deceived Cowboys season ticket holders known as the “Founders” into paying $1,200 a seat for Super Bowl tickets that turned out to be temporary seats with obstructed views.

The “Founders,” who collectively account for over $100 Million in personal seat licenses sold to help fund construction of the stadium, each paid at least $100,000 per seat for their seat license, which the Cowboys and Jones promised would entitle them to the “best sightlines in the stadium” and the right to purchase a ticket to Sunday’s Super Bowl at face value. Instead, they arrived at the stadium Sunday to discover that they had been assigned to sit in obstructed view, temporary metal seats, which had only recently been installed in an effort to meet Jones’ goal of breaking NFL Super Bowl attendance records.

“You don’t have to own the Cowboys or run the NFL to know that you cannot lawfully treat people like this,” stated lead attorney Michael Avenatti. “At an absolute minimum, Jones, the Cowboys and the NFL need to accept full responsibility and reimburse fans one hundred percent for their expenses and damages. Anything short of that is a slap in the face to the fans of the NFL and the Cowboys.”

As it scrambled to placate the 400 ticketholders who didn't get a seat to Super Bowl XLV, the NFL has a second group of angry fans on its hands.

Eagan Avenatti, LLP, a law firm specializing in consumer rights, launched an investigation into claims that the Cowboys deceived season ticket holders into buying $1,200 seats with obstructed views.

While the NFL took the blame for the 400 fans whose temporary seats weren't ready for Sunday's game, Avenatti took aim at Cowboys owner Jerry Jones.

"These season ticket holders are rightfully irate at Jones and the Cowboys," attorney Michael Avenatti said in a statement. "Jones sold the very fans that helped finance the construction of the stadium on the idea of attending the Super Bowl, took their money, and then put them in illegitimate seats with obstructed views. What team or owner on the planet would treat its best fans like this?"

Known as the "Founders," the fans helped finance the $1.2 billion stadium, contributing more than $100 million in personal seat licenses and another $3 million in annual season ticket sales. Each paid at least $100,000 in PSLs.

"We will get to the bottom of this," Avenatti said. "And when we do, I expect we will find that greed and ego had a lot to do with what happened."

Meanwhile, the NFL expanded its makeup offerings to the 400 fans who had tickets but didn't even get a seat on Super Sunday. The league's offering includes the option of a free ticket to next year's Super Bowl game plus a cash payment of $2,400 (triple the original face value of Sunday's ticket) or a ticket to a future Super Bowl, including next year's if so desired, plus round-trip airfare and hotel accommodations, but not the $2,400. They can wait until after the conference championship games each season to see whether their favorite team reaches the Super Bowl.

A federal judge in Maine says 40 residents with cerebral palsy, epilepsy and other conditions can join a lawsuit seeking to force the state to provide opportunities for them to live outside nursing homes.

On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge John Woodcock granted class-action status to a lawsuit filed by three men with cerebral palsy who want to live on their own but retain services provided by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services.

In the lawsuit filed in December 2009, the three argued the state violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Nursing Home Reform Act because it failed to make it possible for them to live outside nursing homes.

The Bangor Daily News says state officials couldn't be reached Wednesday because of the storm.

The Supreme Court won't stop the class-action certification of a lawsuit against Pella Corp. over a purported defect in one of its windows.

The high court on Tuesday refused to hear an appeal from the window-maker.

The lower courts have certified a class-action lawsuit against Pella. The lawsuit alleges that Pella's aluminum clad wood "Proline" casement windows have a design defect that allows water to seep behind the aluminum cladding. They claim that allows the wood to rot at an accelerated rate, and that Pella committed consumer fraud by not declaring publicly the role that the purported design flaw had in the rot.

But Pella fought the class-action certification, saying consumer fraud claims are inappropriate for class treatment.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Black has approved a previously disclosed $179 million settlement and entered a final judgment in a dispute between AK Steel and retirees at its Butler, Pa., steel plant.

The AK Steel retirees had filed a class-action lawsuit in June 2009 to stop the company from making changes to their health insurance benefits. It had started making retirees pay a portion of their premiums in January 2010.

West Chester-based AK Steel is the largest Dayton-area company, with more than $4 billion in revenue.

Under the terms of the settlement, AK Steel will continue to pay for the benefits through 2014 and also pay $91 million to two trusts to cover future benefits for hourly and salaries retirees.

In return, the company has been relieved of liability for any benefits after 2014, and the lawsuit was dismissed.

The Supreme Court will consider whether to keep alive the largest job discrimination case in U.S. history, a lawsuit against Wal-Mart that grew from a half-dozen women to a class action that could involve billions of dollars for more than a half million female workers.

Wal-Mart is trying to halt the lawsuit, with the backing of many other big companies concerned about rules for class-action cases — those in which people with similar interests increase their leverage by joining in a single claim. Class actions against discount seller Costco and the tobacco industry are among pending claims that the high court’s decision might alter.

The suit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. contends that women at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores are paid less and promoted less often than men. The case the high court accepted on Monday will not examine whether the claims are true, only whether they can be tried together.

Estimates of the size of the class range from 500,000 to 1.5 million women who work or once worked for Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., is appealing a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that the class-action lawsuit could go to trial.

Tobacco giant Altria Corp., Bank of America Corp., Dole Food Company Inc., General Electric Co., Intel Corp., Pepsico Inc. and United Parcel Service Inc. are among the companies that also called for high court review of the case.