|
|
|
San Jose weighs limits on class-action claims
Class Action News |
2007/12/11 11:27
|
| The San Jose City Council today will consider new rules for filing claims that a prominent local lawyer says is an attempt to block class actions. "It's very interesting that this proposal is coming to the council while we've got this suit looming on the horizon," said James McManis, who in September filed a $1 million claim against the city seeking refunds on behalf of thousands of motorists who were ticketed under a controversial city program. The proposal by City Attorney Rick Doyle states that "no claim may be filed on behalf of a class of persons unless verified by every member of that class." Doyle said the new claims policy "is not really related to" the McManis claim or to class-actions in general. Instead, he said it's an attempt to help the city council better calculate the city's potential exposure to damages. Requiring all participants in a class-action to approve the claim filing, Doyle said, makes sense so that the city can determine in advance who has a valid claim. McManis filed his claim on behalf of San Jose motorist Jorge Luis Ramirez and "others similarly situated." The claim says thousands of motorists paid fines ranging from $99 to $350 under the city's now-defunct Neighborhood Automated Speed Compliance Program, or NASCOP. The program involved a city traffic engineer who sat in an unmarked van with a radar gun and digital cameras to snap speeding motorists as they drove past. The registered owner of the vehicle would then receive a ticket in the mail. City officials saw the program as a way to curb speeding without further taxing San Jose's thinly stretched police force. The city sent 7,000 violation notices in 2006 alone. The program also proved popular with many residents frustrated by speeding on neighborhood streets. City officials claimed the program reduced speeding 8 percent overall and cut the number of motorists who exceeded the posted limit by more than 10 mph by 62 percent. But Police Chief Rob Davis and the city's transportation director in February advised the council to convert the program to a warning-only system, citing growing concerns that the tickets could not stand up in court. They noted that since the program was enacted, the state Legislature had declared that photo radar could not be used for speed enforcement. Ramirez said he got two tickets for driving 28 mph and 30 mph in a 25 mph zone. He paid the fines but later was told by police officer friends that it is highly unusual to be ticketed for driving less than 5 mph over the posted limit. Claims are a step toward filing a lawsuit against a government agency. The purpose is to give the government a chance to pay the claim without being dragged into court. Peter Keane, a law professor at Golden Gate University, said Doyle's proposal "seems to go against the whole nature of what a class action suit is all about." He added that the purpose of such lawsuits is to appoint a representative for the entire class because it's virtually impossible to gather the whole group. "Whether the courts would look at it as something the city can or cannot do, I just don't know," Keane said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Action Filed Against Genesco, Inc.
Class Action News |
2007/12/10 17:28
|
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, 07cv1183, on behalfof purchasers of the common stock of Genesco, Inc.("Genesco" or the "Company")(NYSE:GCO) between April 20, 2007 and November 26, 2007, inclusive (the "ClassPeriod"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 4, 2008. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Deborah R. Gross or Susan R. Gross at 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 or via email at debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com. If you are a member of this class, please contact the Law Offices Bernard M. Gross to view a copy of the complaint as filed or to join this action. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Genesco and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1934. Genesco is in the footwear business. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements concerning Genesco's business and prospects. As a result of their representations, Genesco was seen as an attractive acquisition target for Foot Locker, Inc. and others. Subsequently, The Finish Line, Inc. made an increased offer, based on Genesco's purported success. When the truth about Genesco's results began to be revealed, however, Finish Line indicated it would no longer pursue the acquisition. Then, on November 26, 2007, Genesco received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York seeking documents related to its merger agreement and in connection with alleged violations of federal fraud statutes. On this news, Genesco's stock plunged to $25.44 per share on November 27, 2007, almost a 16% drop.
The plaintiff is represented by Law Offices Bernard M. Gross P.C., which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or rights or interests with respect to these matters,
CONTACT: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
Susan R. Gross, Esq.
Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
The Wanamaker Bldg
100 Penn Sq. East, Suite 450
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 866-561-3600 (toll free)
or 215-561-3600
E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or
debbie@bernardmgross.com.
Website: www.bernardmgross.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit card receipt rule leads to class-action suits
Class Action News |
2007/12/05 17:48
|
A law to protect against identity theft has spawned more than 300 class-action lawsuits across the country. The lawsuits claim merchants failed to remove both the expiration date and sufficient digits of the credit card number on receipts they give back to customers. Lawyers are trying to get the lawsuits certified as class actions, potentially opening restaurants and stores to thousands or even millions of dollars in liability. The claims are filed under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, or FACTA. Congress enacted the law in 2003 to address identity theft and credit card fraud. Most people, if they've dealt with FACTA at all, tapped a provision that gives consumers the right to a free credit report each year. But another section requires that businesses truncate credit card information on receipts. That's why retailers no longer print out receipts containing all 16 digits of your credit card number. They must limit the digits to five and remove the credit card expiration date. Lawyers say thousands of retailers across the country -- many using outdated credit card processing machines -- probably are in violation. Businesses that fail to comply with FACTA's credit card rule can be liable for statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per consumer if the noncompliance is willful. Since it would be very difficult to prove actual damages -- that someone had their identity stolen or was the victim of credit card fraud because of receipt errors -- the FACTA lawsuits focus on the argument that the violation was intentional. Defense attorneys describe the lawsuits as the latest consumer class-action fad. "We have lawsuits growing out of a situation where, as far as we know, no one's been actually injured," said Thomas Zych, a partner at a Cleveland law firm that is representing the Children's Place clothing store chain in a FACTA case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fosamax Users Seek Class-Action Status
Class Action News |
2007/12/01 17:42
|
| Lawyers for Fosamax users who believe their jaws were damaged by the osteoporosis drug on Friday asked a federal judge to order Merck & Co. to provide a dental monitoring program for the drug's users. The lawyers made the suggestion to U.S. District Judge John F. Keenan as they argued for the case to be certified as a class-action, in order to pursue claims by users who believe the drug caused osteonecrosis of the jaw, a condition in which portions of the jaw bone die, sometimes leaving the bone exposed. Timothy M. O'Brien, a lawyer for plaintiffs, said hundreds of thousands of patients would benefit from a dental monitoring program that would include regular dental screenings, X-rays and lab tests, all aimed at preventing the need for dental surgery. Paul Strain, a Merck attorney, called Fosamax a "life altering and life saving drug" that helps to prevent the kind of bone fractures that can hasten the deaths of people as they age. He said the drug was a pioneer 11 years ago. Strain also said there was no proven link between degeneration of the jaw bone in some patients and Fosamax. Damage to the jaw bone can result in many ways, including from using steroids, from diseases or weaknesses in the body and from poor dental hygiene. O'Brien said as many as one in every 296 patients who use Fosamax develop the severe damage to the jaw, though Merck disputed the figure. O'Brien said jaws were more susceptible to damage because they are used so frequently and are under greater stress than most bones. Keenan did not immediately rule after hearing arguments. Vance Andrus, another lawyer for the plaintiffs, argued a class-action certification would allow for a trial where a jury could decide whether Fosamax is toxic and hazardous and whether Merck was negligent and should have warned users of dangers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
75,000 Walmart Employees File Class Action
Class Action News |
2007/11/30 15:23
|
More than 75,000 current or former Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT) employees in the State of Washington will receive letters over the next several days notifying them that they are part of a statewide class action lawsuit against the nation’s largest private employer: Wal-Mart. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2001, is believed to be the largest class action in the State’s history. Beth Terrell, attorney with the Seattle law firm Tousley Brain Stephens, will address the Seattle media this morning at 10:30 a.m. at the firm’s offices: 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200, downtown Seattle.
According to the notice that could arrive in the mail as early as today, hourly employees who worked “off the clock” (without compensation) or worked through rest or meal breaks at Wal-Mart or Sam’s Club stores in Washington at any time from September 10, 1997, to the present are automatically considered Class Members. Employees in the class will share in any money or benefits that come from a trial or settlement.
The lawsuit was filed in King County Superior Court nearly six years ago and was certified as a class action in October of 2004. The case was put on hold when Wal-Mart appealed the class-certification decision to both the State Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals ruled against Wal-Mart and affirmed class certification. The Supreme Court denied review, allowing the lawsuit to move forward.
Trial is expected to begin in Spring of 2009. King County Superior Judge Julie Spector will preside.
Attorney Beth Terrell (Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC, Seattle), represents the employees. Terrell says the court’s decision to allow the case to proceed as a class action “is a victory for Wal-Mart employees who, like other hourly employees in Washington, deserve to receive proper rest and meal breaks and to be paid for all hours worked.”
For a decade now, hourly employees of Washington Wal-Mart stores have complained of missing their rest and meal breaks and having to work off the clock. Georgie Hartwig, one of the plaintiffs in the class action, will participate in today’s press conference.
Hartwig worked for the Colville, Washington store for six years, and estimates that she worked two to five hours over her “clocked” time every week. “For hourly workers like Wal-Mart employees, a few hours of pay a week can make a real difference in their paychecks,” Terrell stated. Hartwig’s work load was so heavy that she often skipped meal and rest breaks in order to finish her work.
Hartwig’s story is echoed by other Wal-Mart employees, not only in Washington, but around the country. In California, a judgment was entered against Wal-Mart for nearly $167 million brought on behalf of 115,919 employees who said they did not receive proper meal breaks. In Pennsylvania, a $151 million dollar judgment was entered against Wal-Mart on behalf of 187,000 employees who made similar claims about breaks, and worked off the clock without pay. A class action on behalf of 56,000 Minnesota Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club employees is currently in trial in that state. That trial is expected to be completed by the end of the year.
Rachel Geman, co-lead class counsel (Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, New York), says, “Wal-Mart’s own documents show that it systematically deprived its employees of hard-earned pay through widespread wage and hour violations. Wal-Mart knew about these violations but did nothing to correct them.”
WAL-MART EMPLOYEES SEEKING INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ARE ENCOURAGED TO GO TO: www.walmartwageswa.com or call toll free 800-795-8543.
MS. HARTWIG AND ATTORNEY BETH TERRELL WILL DISCUSS THE LAWSUIT WITH MEMBERS OF THE PRESS AT 10:30 A.M. (PACIFIC). COPIES OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED TO MEMBERS OF THE PRESS ATTENDING THE PRESS CONFERENCE.
For further information, contact Seattle attorney Beth Terrell at 206-682-5600. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ericsson LM Telephone Co. Class Action Filed
Class Action News |
2007/11/30 15:22
|
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., a law firm with offices in Pennsylvania and Ohio, announces that a lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Ericsson LM Telephone Co. (“Ericsson” of the “Company”)(NASDAQ:ERIC) between February 2, 2007 and November 20, 2007, inclusive, (the “Class Period”). The lawsuit was filed against Ericsson and certain officers and directors (“Defendants”).
If you are a member of this class and wish to view a copy of a complaint and join this class action, please e-mail us at info@gsk-law.com and request a copy of the complaint and a plaintiff certification. If you are a member of the Class, you may move the Court no later than December 29, 2007 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. However, if you choose to remain an absent class member, unless and until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that Defendants disseminated false and misleading statements regarding demand for the Company’s mobile network equipment. When Defendants belatedly conceded that demand for its products was far weaker than disclosed, shares of ERIC reacted negatively to the news. Ericsson’s ADS shares, traded on NASDAQ, which had traded as high as $43.41 during the class period, fell to a three year low of $23.00 per share following its announcement that demand for its products had in fact fallen.
If you bought Ericsson securities between February 2, 2007 and November 20, 2007, inclusive, and would like to obtain information about the lawsuit, then you are invited to call (888) 753-2796 to speak with an advisor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
