Home Blog Page 176

Zacks Investment Research Class Action Settlement


Class members contend that Zacks Investment Research Inc. and the marketing company Response North LLP violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited phone calls to consumers.  Mr. John Kerr (lead plaintiff) states he started received unsolicited phone calls on his cellphone from the Utah-based marketing company Response North after he bought a book sold by the Illinois-based investment research firm, Zacks.  The TCPA protects consumers from receiving bothersome phone calls form an auto-dialing device without express consent.  The class action lawsuit is entitled Kerr v. Zacks Investment Research Inc. et al., and is under review in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel preliminary approved the settlement on 9/27/17.  Experts close to the case predict this settlement will affect more than 260,000 Zaks members.  It this time is appears there will be three settlement classes as follows:

  1. Nationwide class of consumers who received calls from Zacks or its affiliates between May 6, 2012, and June 30, 2017
  2. Nationwide class who received a call from Response North as part of its Zacks Book Campaign or the Options Trading Campaign
  3. California class of consumers who received recorded calls from Response North

Zacks Investment Research Inc. and the marketing company Response North LLP have agreed to a $5.48 million dollar settlement in order to avoid any further litigation.

Expect settlement payments?

  • Zacks class members $17 each
  • Response North TCPA class would receive $12.57
  • Response North privacy class would receive $41.90 each

Class members who file timely claims will be represented by James T. Hannink and Zach P. Dostart from the law firm of Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP.

Zacks is represented by Shannon Z. Petersen and Lisa S. Yun of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP and Danielle J. Gould and Joshua J. Cauhorn of Burke Warren Mackay & Serritella PC. Response North is represented by Blair R. Jackson of Invictus Law PLLC and Stephen Turner and Patrik Johansson of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Class members can reach Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP

  • Telephone: 858-623-4200
  • Address: 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530, La Jolla, California 92037
  • sdlaw.com

StarKist Underfilled Tuna Cans Class Action


StarKist is again in the news as the company famous for its tuna is now involved with yet another class action lawsuit. The latest filing comes following allegations that the fish provider underfills its 12-ounce cans. It was only recently that StarKist paid $12 million to settle a similar class action suit surrounding actions that caused their buyers to overpay for underfilled cans of tuna. The latest claims stem from plaintiff Donald Pluckett  who claims that StarKist Co. regularly shorts customers for various tuna products. Some of the more notable products include: Solid White Albacore Tuna in Water, Chunk Light Tuna in Water, Solid White Albacore Tuna in Vegetable Oil, and Chunk Light Tuna in Vegetable Oil.

There is no argument against the idea that StarKist does not serve 12 ounces of tuna. The company labels the products as containing nine ounces of fish in the referred can in a cake form. Basis for the class action suit comes following independent testing which produces results showing the company offers well less than the listed nine ounces. These studies were called upon after the aforementioned lawsuit for StarKist was focused around the company’s five ounce options.

Puckett contends that the FDA’s standard regulations yielded clear results that the amounts tested were under the required yield. The StarKist class action cites FDA regulations, simply stating “Packages and their labels should enable consumers to obtain accurate information as to the quantity of the contents and should facilitate value comparisons.”

The suit is still in the early stages and no apparent settlement appears in site at the moment. Puckett wishes to represent consumers across the nations who have purchased StarKist products in addition to a subclass based in Oregon. Claiming that StarKist has committed fraud, he points to a potential violation in the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act. Puckett is asking for a court order to prevent the company from selling the allegedly mislabeled products. His initial contention is only that the current practice ends. If there is no stoppage in 30 days, he will actively pursue damages and fair reparations from the company.

Northern Leasing Credit Card Equipment Fees Class Action Settlement


Who is a Class Member

  • Anyone who leased a credit card processing terminal (or swipe pad) and paid (or was asked to pay) taxes and fees on the lease by Northern Leasing Systems, Inc.

Preliminary Settlement

  • Members whom money was collected in connection with the SKS Allegations will receive the full amount collected (not including any refunds provided and received) plus $41.75
  • Members whom money was not collected in connection with the SKS allegations will receive $15
  • Members of the Property Tax Equipment Cost Basis Class will receive $14.25 for each year following March 26, 2006 that property taxes were paid based on a cost greater than the “equipment cost”

Required Documentation (Proof)

  • Claims must be submitted online or a hard-copy mailed. The form demands business name, notice ID number, and additional personal information. Claims certify that Leasing Defendants collected/tried to collect property taxes and administration fees

Claim Form

  • class action lawsuits

Important Dates

  • 10/31/17: Exclusion Deadline
  • 10/31/17: Objection Deadline
  • 11/28/17: Hearing Attendance Deadline (written objection must be filed)
  • 12/31/17: Claim Submission Deadline

Northern Leasing Credit Card Equipment Fees Class Action Settlement Case Notes

  • Rainbow Business Solutions, et al. v. Northern Leasing, Inc., et al.
  • Case Number: 4:10-cv-01993-CW

The Rainbow Business Solutions, et al. v. Northern Leasing, Inc., et al. settlement revolves around individuals and business entities who paid or were called upon to pay taxes and fees on leased credit card equipment from the defense.Filing began in 2010 with the claim that Northern Leasing and others worked together to charge erroneous fees and property tax with ties to credit card equipment and related services.The acclaimed businesses are also liable for additional administrative fees that were tied to personal property tax for the leased credit card equipment. While the targeted period lasted from 2006 to 2010, negotiations have been attempted and failed since original filing, but the current settlement agreement was approved in August 2017 and amended subsequently in September.

Class Counsel

  • Gutride Safier LLP (Adam Gutride, Seth A. Safier, and Kristen Simpicio)

Defense Counsel

  • Moses & Singer LLP (Arnold N. Bressler, Esq.and Scott E. Silberfien, Esq.)


  • Website: www.northernleasingsettlement.com
  • Mailing Addresses: listed on website
  • Claim Administrator: 877-221-7632
  • Class Counsel: 415-639-9090
  • Defense Counsel: 212-554-7845

TJ Maxx, HomeGoods and Marshalls Deceptive Pricing Settlement


The powerful trio of TJX Companies: TJ Maxx, Marshalls, and HomeGoods and former customers are awaiting court approval of the pending class action settlement. Four plaintiffs met with a California federal judge in mid-September regarding the $8,500,000 settlement which hangs in the balance. Expectations are that the case has satisfied early qualifications for conditional approval in the preliminary hearing.

Class members filed suit against TJ Maxx and the pairing companies back in July 2015 with a consolidated class action lawsuit being filed on September 3, 2015. Plaintiffs claim the businesses utilized wrongful advertising practices with misleading prices that were never matched. TJX listed numberous sale prices in advertisements that were well below marketed “Compare At” prices for products available throughout California locations. Members contend that listed prices were not meant to reflect intend sale price.

TJX Companies’ initial action was to dismiss the lawsuit. U.S. District Court judge Otis D. Wright denied the motion in belief that the pricing margin was an act of deception to beguile the standard buyer. The company continues to deny any and all allegations regarding the pricing suit. However, their effort to avoid extensive litigation and accompanying expenses results in the current settlement. A hearing for the two-year old filing is scheduled for October 16, 2017.

The proposed TJ Maxx settlement offers a pair of reparations for effected customers. TJX will provide merchandise credits to eligible Class Members who were victimized by the price differential. These credits can be used as a cash equivalent for any product sold at TJ Maxx, Marshalls, or HomeGoods.The secondary option is for class members to exchange the credits for cash at a 75% of the initial value. TJX will not be limited to singular payment back to consumers. The defendant has agreed to change its “Compare At” pricing strategy and disclosures on all websites and signs. With this change comes ensured compliance with California’s price comparison laws.

Potential class members will seek approval of the $8.5M settlement at the upcoming hearing. While the conditions are presently affirmed, TJX Companies’ present stance against the lawsuit implies there may be a small chance for denial. Expectations at present are that the deceptive pricing settlement will be approved.

Update:  The The TJX Companies Inc. has agreed to a $8.5 million class action settlement.  File a claim below:

Claim Form

  • class action lawsuits