San Diego Class Actions Attorney Blog

LA Fitness being sued for consumer fraud

2012-05-18T20:11:13Z

One man is suing as a result of unfair business practices conducted by the gym LA Fitness. Reportedly, the man says that the gym was deducting month $240 from his account for personal training which he says he never signed up for.

Additionally, the man claims that they engaged in consumer fraud when a personal trainer told the victim that he was signing a waiver when, in actuality, the trainer may have taken his electronic signature and inserted it onto a contract that stated the victim consented to the monthly deductions.

]]> This consumer is not the only coming forward complaining about LA fitness. According to one report, there have been several who claim to have been victimized in a similar manner.

In California, there is a law in place that prevents companies from engaging in such unlawful practices. As such the Consumer Legal Remedies Act protects consumers from such actions and allows consumers to seek recompense.

This victim is a struggling student that likely closely keeps track of his pennies. Particularly in this economy, people cannot afford to be ripped off and become victims of billing fraud.

Residents of California should be aware that they do have rights as consumers and there are people willing to be advocates to defend such rights. If a consumer feels that they have been wronged, they may wish to seek experienced legal counsel.

Source: The Arizona Republic, "Tempe man sues LA Fitness, claiming billing fraud," Robert Anglen, May 17, 2012

Is Apple creating a monopoly?

2012-05-13T02:24:37Z

In California, a class-action lawsuit involving Apple iPods that was initially filed in 2004 and granted class-action status in Nov. 2011 is making its way through the courts with the class constituting consumers that purchased several different models of iPods during the time between Sept. 12, 2006 and March 31, 2009.

It appears that Apple is being accused of creating a monopoly through their firmware updates, blocking their consumers from playing other company's music files. Under the California Unfair Competition Law, not only consumers but other businesses as well, are protected from unfair business practices, including the building of a monopoly.

]]> Members of the class should receive a notice via email or the postal service that they are a member. If they do not receive such a notice, there forms that can be filled out on the internet if a consumer purchased an iPod during the specified period. Although the outcome of this litigation is yet to be determined, customers could be entitled to compensation. Again, the outcome of this litigation is yet to be determined, so as of the time of this post, no compensation has been awarded.

It is important for consumers in California and across the nation to be aware that they do have rights as a consumer and that as a consumer they have the ability to take action when unfair business practices are occurring.

Source: ARS Technica, "iPod owners being notified of class-action antitrust suit against Apple," Jacqui Cheng, May 9, 2012

Have you had Nutella recently?

2012-05-02T19:48:48Z

In conjunction with wheat bread, milk and juice, Nutella, a chocolaty hazelnut Italian spread, was depicted in its advertisements as a part of a delicious as well as balanced breakfast. As it turns out, just two tablespoons of the sweet treat contain in excess of 200 calories and around 11 grams of fat. The spread may be tasty but is not that balanced.

One San Diego mother felt that she was the victim of unfair business practices and consumer fraud over the misrepresentation of the spread in its advertisements. She spearheaded a class-action lawsuit against the makers of Nutella for promoting it as a product that was "healthier than it actually is."

]]> As part of a settlement, the makers of Nutella have decided to pay consumers a total of $3 million. Nutella-eaters that purchased the spread in either California or any other state during the period between Jan. 2008 and Feb. 3 will be awarded up to $4 as compensation.

The makers of Nutella put forth a statement that stands by the chocolaty spread, but reportedly settled with the best interest of the company in mind. Additionally, the makers have decided to dedicate more label space on the jar for the nutritional facts. They are also revamping their marketing campaign. Hopefully, this will allow consumers to be better informed about their eating choices.

False advertising can have serious consequences, as displayed by this case. If consumers feel that they have fallen victim to false advertising, they do have the right to seek legal counsel and pursue compensation and justice.

Source: Channel 5 News, "Nutella lawsuit: How much money can you make from the class-action settlement over false advertising," May 1, 2012

60,000 strong employment class-action lawsuit

2012-04-20T18:03:30Z

Chili's and Romano's Macaroni Grills are two popular chains dotted throughout the country, including in San Diego, which are owned by Brinker. Brinker is currently being sued in a employment class-action lawsuit that is proceeding in California as a result of possible violation of employees' rights regarding breaks.

The company first came under a class-action lawsuit in 2004 with the proposed plaintiff comprising a class of around 60,000 non-unionized, hourly wage earners of the company. Many of the class were servers that stated claims of managers placing pressure on the employees to skip their allotted breaks due to inadequate staffing. Additionally, managers were reportedly threatening to cut back hours or change hours if employees were taking the break that they were entitled to.

]]> It was ruled that the company was required to make breaks available but not to ensure that they were taken. A "rolling five-hour" rule was also established which ensured workers the right to an uninterrupted meal after five consecutive hours of work. The plaintiff's attorney regards the decision as a win for California low-wage workers.

There has been a flooding of cases in California such as this in which hourly-wage earners are standing up for their right to take a break. There are reportedly millions being demanded in damages across various lawsuits against various possible offenders.

Regardless of the position or earnings, no employee should be robbed of their rights. Being coerced by an employer is unfair and could be reprehensible with legal action. Employees should fight for their just rights and seek compensation where it is due.

Source: Reuters, "Workers' class action against Brinker can proceed, in part," Terry Baynes, April 12, 2012

Groupon to settle class-action lawsuit consolidated in San Diego

2012-04-16T15:31:35Z

Under California law, customers that have been wronged by a business or corporate entity are entitled to seek redress.

A total of 17 lawsuits have been consolidated before a judge in San Diego against the coupon company Groupon and various other retailers. The company is settling a class-action lawsuit by agreeing to pay $8.5 million as a result of the plaintiff's stating that the expiration dates on the purchased coupons are illegal.

]]> According to the case, "Groupon effectively creates a sense of urgency among consumers to quickly purchase 'groupon' gift certificates by offering 'daily deals' for a short amount of time. Consumers therefore feel pressure and are rushed into buying the gift certificates and unwittingly become subject to the onerous sales conditions."

Although the coupon company disputes the claims, as part of the terms of the settlement, Groupon has also made an agreement to refrain from selling any more than 10 percent of its daily deals with an expiration date present of less than 30 days past issue date.

The San Diego settlement, which was filed March 29, states that customers that purchased a Groupon prior to Dec. 1, 2011 have the option to either redeem their purchased coupon beyond its expiration date or secure a refund from the $8.5 million fund to make right for this company's unfair business practices. There is a stipulation in some states that customers can only seek refund for coupons purchased after Aug. 22, 2012.

Customers should not have to tolerate a company conducting unfair practices. Often, such as in this case, customers can band together and seek class-action in their pursuit of redress.

Source: Bloomberg, "Groupon to Settle Class-Action Lawsuit for $8.5 Million," Edvard Pettersson, April 2, 2012

Employees file class-action status against Tata

2012-04-06T18:03:17Z

Some employees in California have been granted class status in their case against Tata. Tata Consultancy Services is a company that outsources Indiana employees. Often companies will outsource such employees to work in the United States on client projects, paving the way for misuse of visas and employee abuse. It appears this may have been the case with Tata. The class is defined as all "non-U.S. citizens who were employed by Tata in the U.S. at any time from February 14, 2002, through June 30, 2005, and who were deputed to the U.S. after January 1, 2002."

Indian employees that were outsource have been granted class action over what they say was a breach of contract when the company made all employees that were not United States citizens forfeit their federal and state tax returns. Furthermore, the class says that Tata deducted their Indian salary from the employees' compensation. The company reportedly took maters a step further by not providing accurate earnings statements to its employees.

]]> Tata has filed for a dismissal of the case under claims that the case should be arbitrated in India. The outcome of this file for dismissal has not yet been determined.

If it is found that these allegations hold merit, depending on the outcome of the litigation, the class could be entitled to compensation. It would be grossly inappropriate for a company to take advantage of employees because they are not United States citizens and are therefore less likely to be fully aware of their rights as an employee.

Source: ComputerWorld, "Employee litigation against Tata gets class action status," John Ribeiro, April 5, 2012

Path possibly under class-action lawsuit

2012-03-30T17:35:54Z

One man is seeking to file a class-action lawsuit against an electronic application called Path. Path describes itself as a journal-type application that allows users to share what they are doing, listening to and whose company the user is in, at all times. The application has integration capabilities with public networks including Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare.

According to the class complaint, "While Path's practices include the unauthorized interception, use, and storage of contact address data, a review of Path's provisional patent application reveals a high level of tracking than that carried out by other apps. Path's 'uncommon practice' include tracking its users' interaction with users' contacts in online social networks, correlating the user's contact address data with digital media content that has been altered to include exact GPS latitude and longitude coordinates, as revealed in its tracking protocol."

]]> More simply, this means that the class is upset that Path has used the app to garner and insecurely store sensitive information. It is particularly concerning as it relates to minor children. The plaintiff feels that the application attempts to obtain as much information from the user as possible without detection by the user.

If class-action is granted and compensation is in order, the total dollar amount could be steep. The class would request somewhere between $50-$850 for a cellular phone, $150-$1,500 for a tablet, and as much as $12,500 for a computer that had the app installed.

The protection of information, particularly as it relates to minor children, is critical. When this security is violated, compensation could be in order.

Source: Courthouse News Service, "Class Claims Path Apps Are Being Snoops," William Dotinga, Mar. 29, 2012

San Diego-based Utility Consumer Action Network set to dissolve

2012-03-22T20:26:35Z

Many San Diego residents use Utility Consumer Action Network's website to find information on gas prices and other utility-based information. However, San Diego residents may now need to find a new source for utility-related information as Utility Consumer Action Network is set to dissolve in light of a subpoena from a federal grand jury resulting from allegations of embezzlement.

It appears multiple employees issued complaints about financial irregularities within Utility Consumer Action Network, bringing about the charges. "The dissolution process requires that anyone who has a claim against UCAN to make it within 30 days," reported Utility Consumer Action Network director, the man standing at the center of the embezzlement allegations.

]]> According to the Utility Consumer Action Network website, allegations of embezzlement, failure to comply with state audit requirements, the use of private bank accounts to hide money, entering into illegal contracts and engaging in unlicensed legal activities have been aimed at Utility Consumer Action Network senior management.

Contracts are created for the protection of all individuals within a business. When a business falls under internal dispute, resulting from such claims as embezzlement or breach of contract, employee and employer alike can be hurt.

When individuals at whatever level within a company feel they have fallen victim to such internal disruption, it may be best for the individuals to band together to seek experienced legal counsel. Whether in California or elsewhere, an experienced attorney can work with all individuals to ensure that they are protected and that their rights are upheld.

Source: 10 News, "Utility Action Group UCAN Dissolving Amid Probe," Feb. 29, 2012

California interns file class-action lawsuits

2012-03-16T15:57:58Z

Stereotypically, interns may be viewed as sub employees that receive little respect. They may be asked to run personal errands, make copies or tend to the coffee. However, with increasing frequency groups of former inters are filing employment class-action lawsuits in an attempt to obtain compensation for their unpaid wages.

Interns have banned together in class-action lawsuits against companies including California-based Fox Searchlight Pictures. The unpaid interns are seeking compensation for their unpaid wages.

]]> Some companies are responding by issuing new mandates regulating unpaid internships according to the Department of Labor. Some of these new mandates include limiting the hours required of them to work, completion of some sort of orientation orchestrated through Human Resources so that the intern is knowledgeable regarding resources in cases of mistreatment and the assignment of a mentor.

Furthermore, the Department of Labor states that intern are not permitted to fulfill personal errands for the employer. All tasks must be related to the internship. In addition, if an unpaid internship is provided, it must be for college credit and the intern may also only be permitted to work one semester each calendar year.

No longer will interns settle for a lack of compensation in exchange for their hard work and contribution to the company. They are banding together to pursue their rights and possibly obtain compensation for their unpaid wages. It is crucial to be sure that unpaid interns are legal and given their fair treatment. If an intern or former intern feels that they have been wronged, they are within their rights to seek compensation.

Source: Reuters, "A major publishing company has revised its mandates for unpaid interns, in an apparent response to recent unpaid internship lawsuits. Should your small business follow suit?" Andrew Chow, JD, Mar. 14, 2012

A Kardashian class-action reality check

2012-03-09T21:24:50Z

Section 17500 of the California Unfair Competition Law explicitly forbids the use of false advertising. The type of unfair business practice can lead to damages against consumers in California and elsewhere across the country. If a company is found in violation of this code, there could be severe and costly consequences.

Reality television starlets and California residents, the Kardashian's, are being hit with a $5 million class action lawsuit after possibly falsely claiming QuickTrim diet pills worked to aid a consumer in losing weight. The lawsuit targets the trio's endorsement of the weight loss company.

]]> This is the first instance of the sisters encountering litigation over their numerous endorsement deals. Several consumers, including one in California, argue that the endorsement was "false, misleading, and unsubstantiated."

Reportedly, the pills is just a mix of herbs boosted by a hefty dose of caffeine and has never been proven as effective. The possible victims of this unfair business practice are suing for $5 million in damages. This would be a significant fraction of the reality-star family's total worth, standing at reportedly $65 million.

If the court finds the sisters guilty of false advertising, they could have a rather large bill to pay. It is important for all individuals in California and everywhere to be well aware of their rights as consumers.

Currently, litigation is pending on whether or not a judge will certify the complaint as a class-action complaint which would then spread to cover a larger number of consumers that may have fallen victim than just the four current plaintiffs.

Source: The Vancouver Sun, "Kardashians accused of making false claims over diet pills," Mar. 5, 2012

Child's play turns ugly in California antitrust lawsuit

2012-02-29T15:57:29Z

Bratz are a line of fashion dolls for children that at one time was a reportedly $1 billion line. This children's line is the source of much controversy as of late between two California companies, MGA and Mattel Inc, as accusations of antitrust violations unfold.

The controversy began back in 2004 when a Mattel designer left the company for MGA. Mattel threw accusations at MGA for copyright violations. Mattel was awarded $100 million in damages but two years later the ruling was overturned.

]]> Trouble continued six months ago with dispute over which company owned the rights to the reportedly once $1 billion Bratz line. MGA was awarded by a California judge $310 million in damages, which Mattel is currently appealing.

Recently, MGA accused Mattel of violating the Sherman Antitrust law. The Sherman Antitrust Act passed to confront the unfair, and now illegal, practices conducted by business and corporate monopolies. MGA claims Mattel violated this law because they feel that the previous case, regarding ownership of the rights to the fashion doll line, presented a vehicle for Mattel to wage costly expenses against MGA by "litigating them to death" to keep a strong hold on Mattel's share of the market.

A California judge not only dismissed the case, he dismissed it with prejudice. When a case is dismissed with prejudice the case cannot be brought to court again. Mattel was reported as feeling pleased with the decision while MGA says they plan to appeal the ruling.

Antitrust violations are worth paying attention to because the outcome has the potential to impact the everyday consumer as well as retailers and other manufacturers.

Source: Reuters, "Mattel defeats Bratz doll maker antitrust lawsuit," Jonathan Stempel and Dhanya Skariachan, Feb. 22, 2012

Welcome to our San Diego, California, class action lawsuits blog

2012-01-27T00:29:57Z

We established this blog to share stories and information about topics relevant to our practice. Our intent is to highlight local stories, as well as national subject matter, that we think you will find interesting. We will regularly update this blog and encourage you to share your thoughts on these posts.