Home Blog Page 178

Frito-Lay All Natural Ingredients Class Action Lawsuit


Frito-Lay has agreed to remove the “made with all natural ingredients” labeling from its products in response to the class action lawsuit entitled Frito-Lay North America Inc. All Natural Food Litigation, which is Case No. 1:12-md-02413.  The case took place in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and was a hard fought victory for the class action plaintiffs.

A number of similar class action lawsuits against Frito-Lay were consolidated into one claiming that Frito-Lay misled consumers into thinking several of its products did not contain genetically modified ingredients, or “GMOs.”  Frito-Lay denies any actions of wrong doing BUT could not guarantee they did not use GMO’s as bioengineered corn seeds make up about 90 percent of the U.S. corn supply.  The plaintiffs targeted the following Frito-Lay products in the lawsuit: Tostitos, SunChips and Fritos Bean Dip.

The class action plantiffs main goal from day one was to Frito-Lay revise its labeling to remove indications that the products were “all natural”.  Class members will not receive a payment (or coupon) in regards to Frito-Lay North America Inc. All Natural Food Litigation, but the class action plaintiff who brought the case forward will each receive a $5000 payment.  The Judge has also ordered Frito-Lay to spend $215,000 in order to publicize the terms of the settlement to the general public/class members.

The plaintiff in the Frito-Lay All Natural Ingredients class action lawsuit were represented by Ariana J. Tadler and Henry J. Kelston (Milberg LLP) and by Michael R. Reese and George V. Granade (Reese LLP).

Milberg LLP can be reached at 1-877-692-1965, ContactUs@milberg.com, or by mail at Milberg LLP, Attn: Shareholder Services, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York 10119.

Reese LLP can be reached at (212 643 0500), mreese[at]reesellp[dot]com, or by mail at 875 Avenue of the Americas, Eighteenth Floor, New York, New York 10001.



DISH TCPA Class Action Lawsuit


A class action lawsuit has been filed against DISH Network, L.L.C.in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina and it concerns Satellite Systems Network and their unauthorized phone calls to individuals or entities that are placed on the Nationwide Do Not Call List. The lawsuit is now pending and it is entitled Krakauer v. DISH Network, L.L.C., Case No.: 1:14-cv-33.

The plaintiff Thomas H. Krakauer says that Dish Network had authorized Satellite Systems Network to made phone calls to his number even after he had been placed on the National Do Not Call List. The calls often concerned telemarketing sales inquiry to promote or distribute DISH products. Because of the nature of this lawsuit, the Judge has allowed Krakauer to file the suit on behalf of those who received telemarketing calls between May 1, 2010, and August 1, 2011, from Satellite Systems Network soliciting sales for DISH products and to those who had also been on the National Do Not Call list for at least 30 days prior.

The lawsuit is currently ongoing and the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Judge Catherine C. Eagles Eagles have declared that DISH Network and their affiliate Satellite Systems Network has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act–47 U.S.C. 227–which explicitly bans the use of automated telephone programs and equipment as well as restrict the practice of telemarketing solicitation. Considering that DISH and SSN had violated the act and had made telemarketing calls to those who were on the Do Not Call list, Judge Eagles has tripled the payout amount in order to request additional persons to come forward and to “deter Dish and to give suitable weight to the seriousness and scope of the violations Dish committed.” The Federal Trade Commission created the Do Not Call registry in 2003 in an effort to cease persistent telemarketing phone calls.

The plaintiff is seeking $500 in damages per call received from SSN regarding DISH products from May 1, 2010, to August 1, 2011, and an additional $1,500 per class member. DISH Network has responded that they will appeal the jury’s decision in the class-action lawsuit.

For more information on Class Action claim specifications, you can visit http://www.dishclassaction.com/.

Claim $36 in Anthem Data Breach Class Action Settlement


Who is a Class Member

Anyone who has their personal information listed in the Anthem’s Member Impact Database or received a notice from Anthem about the data breach that was announced in February of 2015.

Settlement Amount


Proof of Purchase

Yes.  Class members must provide documentation with their claims

Claim Form

class action lawsuits

Important Dates

12/29/17: Deadline to Object

1/29/2018: Deadline to make a claim for credit monitoring services or alternative compensation

2/1/2019: Deadline to make a claim for out-of-pocket costs (please note this date is only an estimate)

2/1/2018: Settlement Fairness Hearing

Settlement Notes

  • In re: Anthem Inc. Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 5:15-md-02617-LHK,
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Class members in the Anthem data breach class action lawsuit claim Anthem did not adequately safeguard consumers’ personal information in regards to a cyber attack that resulted in the personal information theft of around 79 million people.  The information in question was stored in Anthem databases and included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health care ID numbers, home addresses, email addresses and employment information.

The defendants in the Anthem Inc. Data Breach Litigation are defined as Anthem, its subsidiaries and affiliates, and certain Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies who had members with data stored on Anthem’s databases that was compromised due to the Anthem data breach.

Anthem Inc. denies any actions of wrong doing but have agreed to settlement terms in order to avoid the unknown expense of a trial.  Anthem will also establish a $115 million fund to provide payment for out-of-pocket losses Class Members suffered or credit monitoring services to protect Class Members from future harm.

All class members who file valid claims in the case will be represented by Eve Cervantez (Altshuler Berzon LLP), Andrew N. Friedman (Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC), Eric Gibbs (Girard Gibbs LLP), and Michael W. Sobol (Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP).

Anthem Inc. will be represented by Craig A. Hoover, E. Desmond Hogan, Peter R. Bisio, Michael Maddigan, and Allison M. Holt (Hogan Lovells US LLP)

Contact Information

Mail: Anthem Inc. Data Breach Litigation, c/o KCC LLC, P.O. Box 404012, Louisville, KY 40233-9821
Phone: 1-855-636-6136

Settlement Website


$300,000 Harcourt Hotel Housing Class Action Settlement

Who is a Class Member Anyone in the United States who stayed at a Harcourt Hotel and were required to move, or check out or reregister, before the expiration of 30 days of occupancy, between June 18, 2011 and June 17, 201
Settlement Amount $300,000
Proof of Purchase Yes.  Class members must submit under the penalty of perjury that they lived in a unit at the Harcourt Hotel during the Class Period, and provide their Social Security number for tax reporting purposes.
Claim Form class action lawsuits
Important Dates

11/20/2017: Settlement Fairness Hearing

11/14/2017: Claim Form Deadline

11/14/17: Objection Deadline

Settlement Notes

A settlement has been approved in the class action lawsuit entitled Boice, et al. v. Harcourt Group LLC, et al., which is pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco and is listed as Case No. GCG-14-539994.

Class members contend that Harcourt Group LLC and Sojourn Properties Inc. improperly required certain tenants to move out of the Harcourt Hotel before they obtained tenant rights.  Harcourt Group LLC and Sojourn Properties Inc. deny any actions of wrong doing but have agreed to settle in order to avoid unknown cost of a future trial.

Plaintiffs Eric Boice, Vinetta Boice, Jennifer Hawkins and Yowie Stromberg (lead plantiffs) also accuse the defendants of violating the Health and Safety Code and the San Francisco Rent Ordinance.

Class member shave until November 14, 2017 to submit a claim and all class member who file valid claims will be represented by Mark Hooshm and Tyson Redenbarger from the Hooshmand Law Group.

Contact Information Hooshmand Law Group – Harcourt Class Action
c/o Mark Hooshmand, Esq.
22 Battery Street, Suite 610
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 318-5709
Settlement Website hooshmandlawgroup.com