Archive for the 'Current Class Action Lawsuits' Category
July 11th, 2011 by Admin
De Puy Hip Implant Lawsuit
The next big famous class action lawsuit could well be the hip joint class action. The recalled hip replacement is the next big thing after the BP oil spill litigation and before that, the Toyota acceleration class action. De Puy and Johnson & Johnson are targets of the class action lawsuit involving metal-on-metal hip replacements that fail.
The hip joints fail at a higher rate than is acceptable in medical circles, causing patients severe pain and increased medical bills, as failed hip joints often have to be replaced by new surgery. Already 1,000 lawsuits have been filed in the United States alone. The hip joint class action revolves around the idea that Johnson & Johnson and their medical device unit, DePuy Orthopaedics, knew about potential problems with metal-on-metal hip joints. They allegedly knew about the problems before they stopped making the ASR model in 2009 and then recalled existing units in 201o.
Johnson & Johnson stands to lose $1 billion in liability and has therefore already started beefing up its liability reserves. The drug and medical device company is also setting aside millions of dollars to cover medical expenses of people with De Puy hip replacements and who suffered problems with the device.
March 19th, 2011 by Admin
The AT&T phantom data lawsuit filed last month in California is still pending this month. The class action lawsuit is awaiting a decision by the Supreme Court on another AT&T class action lawsuit. The current phantom data charges lawsuit is on hold until the Supreme Court can make a decision on the other lawsuit, which is also between AT&T’s wireless division and a wireless customer.
In the previous AT&T class action, a California couple charges AT&T with violating California’s consumer protection laws. There were allegedly charged around $30 for a phone they believed to be free. The class action was filed in 2006 and is now before the Supreme Court, awaiting a decision.
There is a clause in all wireless contracts with AT&T stating that customers cannot participate in class action lawsuits against the company. Matters are to be settled out of court, and individually, which is of course a cheaper alternative for the giant communications company. The Supreme Court, however, has deemed this clause as unconscionable. That means the clause is so unfair it’s not even enforceable.
AT&T lawyers are fighting back, stating that there are Federal laws that actually encourage arbitration agreements, and that these laws pre-empt state laws that allow consumers to bring class action lawsuits. States like California argue that arbitration agreement clauses like AT&T’s essentially leave the public no recourse when a company has caused them injury.
So, the AT&T phantom data lawsuit will have to wait until the Supreme Court decides whether an AT&T class action can even occur.
February 14th, 2011 by Admin
The seating fiasco at Dallas Stadium has resulted in a Superbowl class action lawsuit, filed this past week in Federal Court. Apparently seating workers walked off the job, leaving some seating sections at Dallas Stadium, where this year’s Superbowl football game was held, unfinished and unusable. The seating was unfinished and therefore the local fire marshal deemed it unsafe, leaving Dallas Cowboys owner and stadium managers no choice but to leave the seating sections containing hundreds of seats, empty.
When season ticket holders arrived at the Superbowl game in Dallas last week, they were allegedly told their seats were unavailable. Season ticket holders and other ticket holders, totaling 1250 people, were all either given cancellation notices the day of the game, or eventually given temporary seating which turned out to be substandard and with obstructed views. The plaintiffs in the Superbowl class action lawsuit, who represent two groups, are suing Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones for cost of travel to a game they never got to attend, and for breach of contract for tickets they purchased and for which they received low quality seating with terrible views.
Some season ticket holders paid as much as $100,000 for just one ticket! The money went towards building the Dallas Stadium, which is home to the Dallas Cowboys football team. These season ticket holders, a special group of supporters, are called The Founders, since they helped build the stadium. How ironic then, when they were given temporary seating on hard metal chairs with bad views of the game. This is the group that’s suing in the Superbowl class action lawsuit, for breach of contract.
The other group, of about 400 of the 1200, never even got any seats, temporary or otherwise. They had to watch the game on monitors. They weren’t even told of their lack of seating until they arrived at the stadium the day of the game. This group is suing for travel expenses, among other things, in the Superbowl class action lawsuit.
February 7th, 2011 by Admin
AT&T has been named in an iPhone data class action lawsuit over phantom data charges. iPhone users who examine their bills notice that they are being over charged for web time and also that they are being charged for time they never used. Known as phantom data, charges that show up on the invoice for data transfers the user never requested, and are the basis of the iPhone class action lawsuit.
The over charging and the charging for phantom data can be compared to a gas pump at a gas station that charges you for 1.2 gallons every time you buy just one gallon. And then you see a second charge on your credit card bill for gas you never even bought. The amount is small, but for the gas station, it all adds up to a lot of money. The iphone class action lawsuit was initiated after an independent consulting firm hired by the plaintiff discovered after studying his bills for two months, that AT&T was overcharging him by a little bit each month.
The amount of the over charging, states the counsel in the iPhone data class action lawsuit, was seven to fourteen percent each month. Actually that’s quite a bit of overcharging, say the plaintiffs. The consulting firm hired by Patrick Hendricks, the plaintiff, noticed that AT&T would charge for 107 KB of data transfer, when in reality the plaintiff only downloaded 100 KB of data. That’s the minimum amount of overcharging discovered, seven percent. The iPhone data class action lawsuit states that sometimes the over charging was as much as 300%.
The second part of the iPhone data class action lawsuit claimed that AT&T charged for data transfer time that never even occurred. They bought a new iPhone and disabled all buttons that would allow the user to connect for data transfer. They let it sit unused for more than a week and got charged for 35 data transfers.
December 14th, 2010 by Admin
A Diabetes drug class action has resulted from a study that liks the drug Avandia to heart problems. The problems, which specifically are higher risk of heart attack, may have been known to GlaxoSmithKline long before the news was made public, hence the Diabetes drug class action. The government report issued in February of 2010 hints that GlaxoSmithKline knew of heart attack risks years before the news went public.
News of the Diabetes drug which led to a class action lawsuit was made public after a Senate Finance Committee report was issued in February 2010. The report, which was several hundred pages long, criticized the FDA for not heeding concerns filed by its own staff.
Avandia has been linked to over 80,000 heart attacks over several years, since it came onto the market. This was known in 2007, three years ago. The issue was first raised as far back as 1999. The Diabetes drug class action was based on the fact that GlaxoSmithKline attempted to minimize the negative information, which was damaging to the product Avandia. They hired physicians who focused on findings that made it less clear that Avandia was linked to increased cardiovascular activity, or heart attacks.
The active ingredient in Avandia, rosiglitazone, was found in 2008 by the FDA to be connected to increase risk of heart attack. Studies at the time, which tested Avandia on human patients, were called upon to be stopped, as unethical and exploitative to the subjects. Not until July 2010 were the studies halted. The long-term studies were halted by the FDA. The studies had been ordered by the FDA itself in 2007, to study the safety of the drug after concerns were raised. The study was to establish harm, which is normally conducted on lab animals, not humans.
While the study is halted but not stopped altogether, the FDA also mulls whether to put stronger warning labels on the product and to limit who can take the Diabetes drug. The study was slowing down anyway, since only around 1400 participants had signed up, whereas the study called for 16,000.
October 20th, 2010 by Admin
Bank of America Class Action
A Bank of America class action was announced today, in a case over alleged illegal foreclosures on homes in the State of New Jersey. Plaintiffs Lawrence Friscia and Jonathan Minkove bring the lawsuit on behalf of homeowners who went through the process of foreclosure with Bank of America, and suffered due to the bank’s disregard of procedures.
Bank of America allegedly foreclosed on thousands of homes in New Jersey, but without proper procedures in place, missing paperwork, and disregard of facts and regulations. Foreclosure administrators at the bank admittedly signed paperwork without proper investigation or review of the facts. They are often now called Robo Signers and Rubber Stampers. Their admission of signing without proper backup review is one of the main facts on which the Bank of America class action hinges.
Paintiff Friscia is head of a firm in Newark, NJ which counsels distressed homeowners. Plaintiffs are suing for damage to their credit scores, emotional distress, and time they had to spend away from their jobs, spent in meetings relating to foreclosure proceedings, as well as attorney meetings.
The Bank of America class action alleges that the bank regularly promised to negotiate terms with mortgage holders in trouble, but then failed to honor those terms. They are accused of rushing to seize homes without regard to foreclosure procedures, regulations, or fair business practices. The are accused of acting to seize homes without full knowledge of cases. They are accused of violations of the New Jersey Fair Foreclosure Act as well as the Consumer Fraud Act.
The Bank of America class action also hinges upon the fact that the bank voluntarily suspended its foreclosure actions for a period of time, between October 8 and October 18, 2010. This, according to the foreclosure class action, is admission of guilt.
September 28th, 2010 by Admin
De Puy Hip Implant Lawsuit
A De Puy hip implant lawsuit was filed in Federal court today, covering any US citizen who has undergone such a procedure. The parent company of DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc is Johnson & Johnson, who recalled the hip implant system on August 24, a little more than one month ago.
The exact procedure is the ASR™ XL Acetabular System, which was found to have an unacceptable failure rate. The failure rate, according to the report released in Britain, was 13 percent of those who received the implant, within five years. That’s an unacceptable rate, and De Puy Orthopaedics recalled the ASR™ XL Acetabular System in August 2010. It was a voluntary recall of the hip implant, but now the result has been a De Puy hip implant Lawsuit.
The hip implant lawsuit is brought by Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C., and the class action was filed today, September 28, 2010 in the State of Ohio. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of anyone in any state, not just the State of Ohio.
The plaintiff in the De Puy hip implant lawsuit is Burg Simpson. The lawsuit questions whether De Puy Orthopaedics should have known about the defects before selling them, and whether they have acted quickly and thoroughly enough to warn patients against the possible defects in the system.
Hip implant surgery is a major operation, and the defects in the ASR system by De Puy have caused patients to have to undergo the disruptive surgery a second time in order to replace the defective implant. The implant in question causes pain or problems walking.
De Puy has offered to pay medical expenses for patients who need corrective surgery after the defective implant fails. They will have to sign a release granting De Puy full access to their medical records, however.
September 28th, 2010 by Admin
Class Action Against Dial Complete
A class action lawsuit has been filed in the State of Illinois today, against the makers of Dial Complete. This Dial Soap class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of plaintiff David Walls, who is suing on grounds that Dial Corporation has no research to back up claims printed on the label.
Dial Corporation claims three things on the label:
- Dial Complete “kills %99.9 of germs”
- Most recommended by doctors
- kills more germs than any other liquid hand soap
The Dial Soap class action lawsuit also states that the active ingredient in Dial Complete may be dangerous. The main active ingredient, triclosan, was registered in the US in 1969 as a pesticide. The European Union’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Products warns that triclosan is dangerous in cosmetics at certain levels. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is currently reviewing triclosan and will publish the results of the studies next Spring.
According to Mr. Walls, only one study has ever been done on Dial Complete. The study was conducted by a firm called Dial Center for Innovation. The firm is located right across the street from Dial’s corporate headquarters in Arizona. That study was done in 2001
Davis Walls, the plaintiff in the Dial Soap class action lawsuit, is represented by Eric Holland, of the law firm Holland Schneller Groves. Anyone in the State of Illinois who has used Dial Complete may join the Dial Soap class action lawsuit.
August 31st, 2010 by Admin
Poligrip class action
Poligrip is a widely known and very popular denture adhesive used by millions of people. A main ingredient of the denture adhesive, and of another brand called Fixodent, is zinc. Doctors are finding possibilities of links between zinc and Hypocupremia, Hyperzincemia, neuropathy and zinc poisoning. GlaxoSmithKline, who manufactures Poligrip, removed zinc from the product in February 2010, but that hasn’t stopped a Poligrip class action from forming in the meantime.
A 2008 study published in the American Academy of Neurology stated that excessive and chronic use of denture creams containing zinc may lead to serious neurological damage. Nearly 35 million Americans use denture cream adhesive, and Fixodent and Poligrip are the two biggest brands. Poligrip is made by GlaxoSmithKline and Fixodent is made by Proctor and Gamble. In 2009, a Fixodent class action lawsuit as well as a Super Poligrip class action lawsuit were filed in the State of Tennessee. Plaintiffs in the Poligrip class action allege that the denture cream adhesive packaging had no warnings of high levels of zinc.
The human body does need some zinc, but levels consumed by denture wearers using Poligrip or Fixodent are way higher than recommended levels. Zinc is ingested or absorbed through the mouth or gums. Too much zinc will lower the levels of copper in the body, causing neuropathy, zinc poisoning or other neurological problems that could cause the user to become disabled.
Plaintiffs in the Poligrip class action against GlaxoSmithKline are Michael Lowe and Marlon J. Bond. Sandra Williams, Diane M. Bates and Retha Jones are the plaintiffs in the denture cream lawsuit against Procter & Gamble.
August 31st, 2010 by Admin
Punitive Damages Sought in BP Oil Spill Class Action Lawsuit
August 20, 2010 a new development in the BP oil spill lawsuit broke the news. A new BP oil spill class action lawsuit was filed on US District Court in New Orleans, seeking punitive damages from BP and other companies involved in drilling oil in the region, from the Macondo well. The BP oil spill lawsuit was filed on behalf of Corliss Gallo, a landowner on Grand Terre Island. His property was damaged by the oil spill, and trampled by the cleanup efforts that followed.
Defendants named are BP, Transocean Ltd., Cameron International and Halliburton, who are accused of “gross negligence and willful, wanton, and reckless indifference for the rights of others.” This case of punitive damages in the BP oil spill lawsuit is the first to bring to light the controversial question of punitive damages, after a 1994 decision in the Exxon Valdez oil leak. A jury awarded some Alaska fishermen around $5 billion in punitive damages, but the Supreme Court later reduced the punitive damages to $507 million, which was equal to actual damages.
The Supreme Court ruled that in maritime cases, punitive damages would be on a one-to-one ration with compensatory damages, which was a fair upper limit. However, in the case of reckless profiteering, the ratio could be three to one. The courts must find egregious behavior for the purpose of financial gain, on the part of the defendants, in order for punitive damages to equal three times compensatory damages.
Plaintiff Corliss Gallo’s attorneys will try to show that BP et al failed to fix equipment and knowingly took risks in order to further their profitable gain.
The gigantic BP oil spill class action lawsuit will likely be divided into categories, according to types of damages:
- natural resource damages
- personal injury
- economic injury damages
- racketeering charges
- punitive damages
