Judge Grants Cryptsy Lawsuit Class Action Status

Marc is reading…. ” http://www.coindesk.com/judge-grants-cryptsy-lawsuit-class-action-status/”

A Florida judge has certified a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of customers of the now-defunct digital currency exchange Cryptsy.
In an order issued yesterday, US District Judge Kenneth Marra approved a request by plaintiffs for class action certification, originally filed on 27th July.
According to the order, the certification covers all Cryptsy account holders as of 1st November, 2015. Specifically, it includes anyone “who held bitcoins, alternative cryptocurrencies or any other form of monies or currency” prior to that date on the exchange.

The lawsuit dates back to January, when after months of growing problems with withdrawals, Cryptsy abruptly closed amid claims it had suffered a debilitating hack a year and a half prior. At the time, the exchange said that it had millions in outstanding customer liabilities.
CEO Paul Vernon, one of the defendants named in the class action suit, said at the time that customers were misled about the health of the exchange in order to avoid a “panic”.

In yesterday’s court order, Marra further wrote:
“The Class claims are the conversion, negligence, unjust enrichment, specific performance, FDUPTA, fraudulent conveyance and civil conspiracy claims contained in counts I-V and VII – IX of the Amended Complaint.”


Marc Primo is reading: “https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/342096-godiva-chocolatier-facta-class-action-settlement/”

Godiva Chocolatier Inc. has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that alleges the company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act by printing more than the last five digits of credit and debit card numbers on receipts.

If you made a purchase at a Godiva store using a credit or debit card between Apr. 6, 2013 and Nov. 20, 2015, you may be eligible for benefits from the Godiva FACTA class action settlement.

Plaintiff Dr. David S. Muransky filed the FACTA class action lawsuit against Godiva, claiming that the chocolate company willfully violated FACTA by printing point-of-sale credit card and debit card receipts that included more than the last five digits of the card number.

FACTA is a federal law that includes provisions meant to protect consumers from the threat of identity theft. The law includes provisions that prevent merchants from printing certain information on receipts that are issued following a point-of-sale transaction. Under FACTA, merchants cannot include any portion of the expiration date or any numbers other than the last five digits of the payment card number on the receipt.

Godiva denies the allegations and maintains that it didn’t do anything wrong. However, the chocolate company has agreed to settle the FACTA class action lawsuit to avoid the uncertainty and expense of ongoing litigation. Godiva has agreed to pay $6.3 million to end the litigation.

Under the terms of the Godiva FACTA settlement, Class Members who file timely and valid claims are entitled to cash payment. The deadline to exclude yourself from or object to the Godiva class action settlement is Aug. 23, 2016.

Who’s Eligible

Class Members of the Godiva FACTA settlement include all persons in the United States who made a payment with a credit or debit card at a Godiva store located in the United States, and for whom Godiva printed a point-of-sale receipt that displayed more than the last five digits of the credit or debit card between Apr. 6, 2013 and Nov. 20, 2015.

Potential Award

The amount each claimant will receive from the Godiva FACTA settlement will depend on the total number of claims that are filed. It is estimated that each approved claimant will receive a payment of about $235.

Ontorio inmates file for class action lawsuit for relentless lockdowns:

Marc Primo is reading “http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-inmates-file-class-action-lawsuit-for-relentless-lockdowns/article31425656/”
As many as 200,000 current and former Ontario inmates could be headed for a massive payday if allegations contained in a new lawsuit against the provincial government hold up in court.
For years, short-staffed provincial prisons have been confining thousands of inmates to their cells for days on end because they lack the adequate number of correctional officers to handle Ontario’s full inmate population.
On Monday, a group of those inmates filed a class-action lawsuit, arguing that these relentless lockdowns at Ontario prisons have caused “tremendous physical and psychological damages to inmates across the Province,” according to the suit.
None of the allegations has been tested in court.


Marc Primo is reading https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/prescription/340792-benicar-chronic-diarrhea-linked-growing-lawsuits/

A Kentucky plaintiff recently filed a Benicar lawsuit, alleging that Benicar and chronic diarrhea are linked, but that Daiichi Sankyo failed to adequately warn about the risk.

The plaintiff, Clarence P., began taking Benicar at the direction of his doctor on Jan. 6, 2005, in order to treat hypertension.

However, after beginning to take Benicar, Clarence suffered from a serious of personal injuries, especially gastrointestinal problems. These problems included chronic diarrhea, sequelae, abdominal pain, and bloating.

These complications led to otherwise unnecessary medical treatment, as well as limited his activities and caused loss of enjoyment of life.

The lawsuit linking Benicar and chronic diarrhea was filed on multiple counts, including design defect, failure to warn, gross negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and violation of Kentucky laws.

A massive lawsuit has been filed against Bayer Corp. by ninety women who claim the company’s permanent sterilization device caused them severe Essure contraception side effects.

A massive lawsuit has been filed against Bayer Corp. by ninety women who claim the company’s permanent sterilization device caused them severe Essure contraception side effects.

The Essure device is the only nonsurgical permanent female sterilization device available on the market today.

For many women who desired it, having a way to permanently prevent pregnancy without having to undergo surgery appeared to be the perfect health choice.

What the plaintiffs in this lawsuit and many other women didn’t plan for is that the Essure contraception side effects could be life altering, and in some cases, even fatal.

The Essure device consists of two small metal coils that are planted into the fallopian tubes. For insertion, the procedure accesses the tubes through the vagina during an in office procedure with a physician.

As tissue forms around the coils, the fallopian tubes become blocked and fertilization of the egg is prevented, thereby preventing pregnancy.

The plaintiffs filed the Essure contraception side effects lawsuit following an announcement made by the FDA on February 29, 2016, when the agency informed the public of its plan to educate the public about the risks of using Essure.

The FDA required a black box warning on the Essure label to warn doctors and patients of “reported adverse events, including perforation of the uterus and/or fallopian tubes, intra-abdominal or pelvic device migration, persistent pain, and allergy or hypersensitivity reactions.”

All plaintiffs in the lawsuit who were implanted with Essure stated that they suffered from severe and permanent injuries as a result of Essure contraception side effects.

The Essure contraception side effects lawsuit states that Essure secured Conditional Premarket Approval (“CPMA”) by the Food and Drug Administration and that Bayer failed to comply with the CPMA order as well as other federal regulations.

The lawsuit further states that Bayer’s failure to comply with federal regulations and the CPMA order were not mere allegations but were demonstrated in findings by the FDA, including Notices of Violations and Form 483’s.

The Essure contraception side effects lawsuit goes on to state that Bayer was cited for 17 different violations according to the FDA and the Department of Health.

Some of these violations included failing to report and actively concealing eight perforations that resulted from the use of Essure, manufacturing Essure at an unlicensed facility, failing to report complaints of products migration and failing to disclose 16,047 complaints to the FDA as Medical Device Reports.

“Had Plaintiffs known that Defendants were concealing adverse reactions, not using conforming material approved by the FDA, not using sterile cages, operating out of an unlicensed facility, and manufacturing medical devices without a license to do the same, they never would have had Essure implanted,” the Essure contraception side effects lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs have brought forth to allegations against Bayer including negligent misrepresentation and negligence-failure to warn.

They are seeking compensatory, punitive, incidental and consequential damages including pain and suffering, delay damages, as well attorneys’ fees and costs of the lawsuit.

The Essure Contraception Side Effects Lawsuit is Case No. 2:16-cv-03767 in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

DOL Overtime Changes to Increase Protections for and Wages of Millions of Workers

On May 18, 2016, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced new overtime rules under the Federal Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), giving employers until December 1, 2016, to comply. The rules increase the salary threshold over which employers may classify their employees as exempt under one of the white-collar exemptions—administrative, executive, or professional. The salary threshold under federal regulations had been $23,660, meaning that employees only had to earn at least $23,660 annually in order to qualify for one of these exemptions. The new rules double the annual salary threshold to $47,476.

This is an important increase, as employees who are classified as exempt are not entitled to overtime pay. The DOL estimates that under the previous salary threshold, only 7% of salaried workers were entitled to overtime pay. With the increase in the salary threshold, the DOL estimates that 35% of salaried workers will now be entitled to overtime pay. Department of Labor, “The New Overtime Rule & Working Women: By the Numbers,” available here. According to the DOL, the new rules will impact 4.2 million workers, 56% of whom are women, who will either gain new overtime protections or get a raise to the new salary threshold. Id. California employees will also see an increase in the salary threshold, although a less substantial one. California law already applies a salary threshold of $41,600 to qualify as exempt under a white-collar exemption. Thus, the DOL’s changes increase the minimum salary threshold for California employees by nearly $6,000.


Pure Food & Wine Workers File Class Action Lawsuit Demanding Back Wages from MIA Owner

Repost from NY.Eater.com. It reads…

Owner Sarma Melngailis is also being sued by investors and facing eviction from her apartment.

Six weeks ago, staffers walked out of raw food destination Pure Food & Wine after not being paid in weeks and the restaurant shuttered for the third time this year. Shortly after, owner and raw food icon Sarma Melngailis went MIA, as she has before. The workers, sick of the recurring situation, unionized recently, and now, according to Gothamist, have filed a class action suit against Melngailis. The suit demands back wages for 60 workers, 60 days’ pay and $500 per day in penalties for Melngailis not warning staff of impending layoffs as is required by law.

Melngailis is also facing a lawsuit from investors who signed on earlier this year to bail her out of the last financial crisis. Asparagus Trading Corporation claims they gave Melngailis $31,000 to pay July rent and hand over the business. She didn’t. The investor claims she stole from that investment. A judge has ordered that Melngailis’s bookkeepers to share their records with the court. Since Melngailis has all but disappeared, she is being served with court orders via mail and email. She is also facing an eviction from her apartment.

Meanwhile, the union of staffers hopes to reopen the restaurant with new investors, though that seems to be a slow-going process.

Source: here

PetroChina Class Action Dismissed

Below is an article from jdsupra.com. It reads…

On August 3, a federal district court in New York dismissed with prejudice a securities class action suit filed against Chinese oil and gas company PetroChina Co. Ltd. The suit alleged that statements in the company’s 2011 and 2012 financial statements claiming the company was in compliance with its internal rules and securities regulations were false or misleading. The plaintiffs filed the suit after the Chinese government announced that it was investigating four of the company’s top executives for corruption.

The court dismissed the complaint in its entirety, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege any acts of bribery or corruption that predated the filing of the 2011 and 2012 financial statements. The court wrote: “[T]his Court is not requiring that Plaintiffs allege a detailed account of the particular illicit deals that PetroChina officials were allegedly engaged in. Plaintiffs are required, nonetheless, to establish—at a bare minimum—that the underlying fraud took place during the time period covered by the purportedly false public statements and that someone at PetroChina knew or had reason to know about it.”

Similar class action suits against Wal-Mart and Avon have also been dismissed in the past year.

Source: here

Inland Empire Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit Against UCLA Health System For Data Breach Affecting 4.5 Million Patients



Repost from PRNewswire.com

REDLANDS, Calif., Aug. 11, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — McCuneWright, LLP has filed a class action complaint against UCLA Health System, UCLA Medical Sciences, and The Regents of the University of California, for responsibility regarding compromised private data that may have affected as many as 4.5 million patients earlier this year.

Richard McCune, partner of the Inland Empire’s premier complex litigation firm, McCuneWright, LLP, and a national spokesperson on legal issues concerning consumers, said, “UCLA had the responsibility to take the steps necessary to protect their patients’ sensitive information and comply with HIPAA guidelines. It’s not clear why a university of UCLA’s size and notoriety would not do more to secure their patients’ most private information.”

The complaint was filed July 29 in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of Miguel Ortiz and “all others similarly situated.” It alleges that “personally identifiable information (PII) and other highly sensitive information was stolen,” that the “Defendants knew that the information was a likely target for attack by cyber criminals” – given UCLA’s own history of being hacked less than a decade ago and other highly publicized recent massive data breaches – and that, despite this fact, the defendants failed to take even basic protective steps such as data encryption.

According to UCLA, it is possible that these patients had their names, Social Security numbers, date of birth, health plan identification numbers, and specific financial and medical information compromised in the security breach of the Health System’s computer network, which was announced to the public July 17.

UCLA admitted the hospital detected unusual activity on one of its computer servers as early as October 2014 and, with the FBI, began its investigation then. On May 5, according to UCLA, investigators determined that hackers had accessed parts of the network holding patient information. The complaint notes that patients were not notified in timely fashion after discovery of the breach, and that the Defendants’ acts and omissions violate the Customer Records Act, Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and invasion of privacy.

Richard McCune is available to talk with reporters about the case and how it could affect not just the 4.5 million patients directly involved but privacy issues and the behavior of corporations and health organizations going forward.

McCuneWright, LLP has long been involved in advocating on behalf of Southern California consumers and holding large organizations accountable for their products and business practices.  The firm is involved in a number of lawsuits dealing with privacy issues, including filing a lawsuit against Intuit, Inc., after cybercriminals breached security in its TurboTax software product.

Additional information regarding the UCLA case, including a copy of the class action complaint, is available atwww.mccunewright.com.

Source: here

Portion of Proposed Class Action Lawsuit Against Bai Brands to Proceed

Repost fro bevnet.com. It reads…

A federal judge has ruled that part of a false advertising lawsuit filed against Bai Brands, maker of Bai5 Antioxidant Infusions beverages, can move forward. Reuters and Michelman & Robinson, LLP (whose blog covers a variety of legal-related topics) reported on the news last month.

Filed on May 6, 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, the proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Bai has misled consumers by making claims about the antioxidant content and value of coffeefruit in its products. The lawsuit states the U.S. Food and Drug Administration prohibits nutrient content claims for antioxidants, with the exception of certain vitamins such as vitamin C. Bai has used phrases including “Antioxidant Packed” and “Antioxidant Goodness Inside” to describe its beverages. The plaintiffs claimed that consumers were deceived into paying a premium for what they thought was a healthier product.

In response to an email inquiry about the lawsuit, Bai Brands CFO Ari Sorokin wrote that “as you might expect, we have been counseled not to respond to your inquiry during litigation.” Sorokin noted that “class action lawsuits are nothing new to the beverage industry, or to Lee Litigation who initiated the suit.”

Based in New York, Lee Litigation describes itself as a “full service litigation law firm” with “a focus on class action lawsuits.” It currently represents plaintiffs in several recent lawsuits involving beverage brands, including Inko’s, Starbucks, and Pom Wonderful, and operates classactioninvestigation.org, a website which lists 26 “active investigations” into consumer product brands in a variety of categories.

In March, Bai filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of plaintiffs in California, New York and Pennsylvania. U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam in the Northern District of California declined to dismiss the case in its entirety, agreeing with plaintiffs that a “reasonable consumer” could be misled into thinking that phrases like “Antioxidant Packed” means that the beverages provide a “good source” of antioxidants. As a result, he deemed the prohibited nutrient content claims in the lawsuit to be valid.

However, he stated that plaintiffs had not provided the court with specific instances of consumer deception, and asked their attorneys to include that information in an amended complaint.

Gilliam did dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims that Bai deceived consumers by simply stating that its beverages include antioxidants. He said that the statements could  “only reasonably be read to assert the undisputed fact” that the products do contain antioxidants, and that such marketing claims are allowed under FDA regulations.

The case is one of a number of proposed class action lawsuits that have targeted antioxidant claims made by beverage companies, including recent litigation filed against Millennium Products, Inc., which produces GT’s Kombucha. Honest Tea, owned by the Coca-Cola Co., continues to battle� a lawsuit alleging that its Honey Green Tea product falsely markets the antioxidant content of the beverage. In January, a federal judge refused to the dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed in November, 2013, citing sufficient evidence that Honest Tea’s product labels might violate federal regulations, according to Law360.com. Antioxidant claims are also at the heart of the aforementioned lawsuit involving Pom Wonderful, with plaintiffs accusing the manufacturer of making “deceptive and misleading” claims regarding the source of antioxidants in Pom Tea products.

Source: here


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 353 other followers