Home Blog Page 179

Claim $148 in General Information Solutions Background Check Class Action Settlement

0

Who is a Class Member

  • Anyone who received background check reports from General Information Solutions which showed events different from criminal convictions that were greater than seven years old between the dates of January 19, 2014 and December 31, 2016.

Preliminary Settlement

  • $704,000

Required Documentation (Proof)

  • No proof of purchase is necessary.

Claim Form

  • Valid class members will be automatically sent payments without the need to file a claim. Checks will be mailed to the addresses shown in company records. Possible changes to information may need to be updated
  • Members may opt out of the settlement.

Important Dates

  • 10/10/17: Deadline for filing a written request to be excluded.
  • 10/23/17: Deadline for settlement term objections.
  • 12/11/17: Final Hearing

General Information Solutions Background Check Class Action Settlement Case Notes

  • Tyus v. General Information Solutions LLC
  • Case No. 2017CP3201389
  • Pending in the Court of Common Pleas – Lexington County, South Carolina

The Tyus v. General Information Solutions LLC is oriented around the claim that General Information Solutions has violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by misrepresenting non-criminal violations as criminal in background check reports. Multiple plaintiffs came forward with complaints about reports. One of the initial people to step forward, Rondo Tyus, contended that his 2003 disorderly conduct violation was improperly reported on a 2014 background check. This is one of the defining accounts as the account is both non-criminal and more than seven years old.

General Information continues to deter all claims, but agreed to settle to a $704,000 fund that will be redistributed to qualifying members. A portion of the fund will also be used to pay any court fees, attorney wages, and additional awards. Members who were misrepresented will automatically receive payments through mailed checks. Expected distribution is to be roughly $150 each. No claims are required, but written requests to be excluded must be submitted by the aforementioned deadline.

Class Counsel

  • E. Michelle Drake (Berger & Montague PC)
  • John G. Albanese (Berger & Montague PC)
  • Thomas C. Lenz (First Albrecht & Blondis)

Defense Counsel

  • Cindy D. Hanson (Troutman C. Lenz)

Settlement Website

Contact

  • Mail: Tyus Settlement Administrator, c/o JND Legal Administration, PO Box 7118, Broomfield, CO 80021
  • Phone: 1-888-551-9702

Junior Mints Packages Have Too Much Air Class Action Lawsuit

2

The Junior Mints Slack-Fill Class Action Lawsuit is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is entitled Biola Daniel v. Tootsie Roll Industries LLC (Case No. 1:17-cv-0754).

Mr. Biola Daniel claims that Tootsie Roll Industries LLC tricks consumers into thinking they are buying more of the Junior Mint Candies product than it actually contains.  Mr. Daniel states that 43 percent of the 3.5-ounce box of Junior Mints contains empty space.  The class action lawsuit goes on to state that the deceptive packaging is non-functional slack-fill, which violates the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and New York consumer protection laws.

The key to the Junior Mint lawsuit will be if the slack-fill serves a legitimate purpose (such as protecting the product within the packaging).  Non-functional or excessive slack-fill is prohibited under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and New York consumer protection laws.

Key points Biola Daniel makes include comparable products such as Good & Plenty candy and Milk Duds.  A similarly sized package of Good & Plenty contains only about 12 percent slack-fill, and a box of Milk Duds contains about 23 percent slack-fill.

If in fact a Junior Mints 3.5-ounce box has 43% empty space compared to other similar products Tootsie Roll Industries LLC will have to provide a legit reason as to why the extra space is needed.

Plantiff Biola Daniel is represented by C.K. Lee and Anne Seelig of Lee Litigation Group PLLC

What do you think?  Leave a comment below…

 

Claim an Estimated $500 in Meadowbrook Insurance Group Junk Fax Settlement

0

Who is a Class Member

  • Any person or entity within the United States of America that received unsolicited advertisements via fax machine from Meadowbrook Insurance Group between April 8, 2011 and June 21, 2017. The advertisement are considered unsolicited due to Meadowbrook having no records of who they sent the advertisements to without consent.

Preliminary Settlement Approval Granted

  • $1,500,000

Required Documentation (Proof)

  • No proof of purchase or other documentation is necessary to make this claim

 

Online Claim Form

  • class action lawsuits

Important Dates

  • 10/31/2017 – Deadline for claim forms to be submitted
  • 12/6/2017 – Final Hearing
  • 10/31/2017 – Objection to term settlement in writing

Case Information

  • Town & Country Jewelers LLC v. Meadowbrook Insurance Group Inc
  • Case number 3:15-cv-02519-PGS-LHG

Town & Country Jewelers LLC v. Meadowbrook Insurance Group Inc. concerns allegations brought by the plaintiff that the defendant had faxed over advertisements without permission, and also argues that the act is a direct violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The act places several prohibitions on telemarketing calls, one of which explicitly states that “unless the recipient has given prior express consent,” unsolicited advertising faxes are prohibited. TCPA also bans the use of automated equipment to send advertisements via fax, phone, or SMS text message. Although the defendant continues to deny the allegations, the settlement does not require Meadowbrook to admit fault, and the court has made no decision as to liability.

The $1.5 million settlement fund will be divided among class members and will be distributed on a pro rata basis. Potential earnings range from $300 to $1500.

Class Counsel

  • Keith J. Keogh from KEOGH LAW LTD.
  • Ari H. Marcus and Yitzchak Zelman from Marcus & Zelman LLC

Defense Counsel

  • Thomas R. Waskom from the law firm of Hunton & Williams LLP

Settlement Website

Hardware Resources Junk Fax Class Action Settlement

1

Who is a Class Member

  • Anyone who subscribed to fax numbers from Hardware Resources TCPA and received a completed transmission of at least one fax by Profax Inc. The faxes were broadcast on the following dates December 6, 2012, November 15, 2013, November 17, 2013, November 18, 2014, November 24, 2014, and November 16, 2015

Preliminary Settlement

  • $11,750,000

Required Documentation (Proof)

  • Claim Form (Closed)
  • No proof of purchase is required as Hardware Resources’ records will verify any claimed class members.
  • Potential members must provide their completed W-9 tax form or valid Taxpayer Identification Number. If this step is not completed, for tax purposes, their payment will be capped at $599.99.

Claim Form (Unnecessary)

  • https://kccsecure.com/hrfaxsettlement/Claimant/UnKnownClaimFormW9 (Closed)

Important Dates

  • 9/29/17: Deadline for claim filing.
  • 10/27/17: Final Hearing

Hardware Resources Junk Fax Class Action Settlement Case Notes

  • Craftwood Lumber Co. v. Hardware Resources Inc.
  • Case No. 16 CH 1353
  • Pending in the Lake County Circuit Court, Illinois

The Craftwood Lumber Co. v. Hardware Resources Inc. case revolved around the claim that Hardware Resources violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Class members contend that the defense approved and sent numerous, unsolicited advertisements to various fax number subscribers. In accordance with the TCPA, those whose privacy was infringed upon may recover damages up to $500 per incident with potential distributions up to $1,500 for each violation.

Craftwood Lumber initially made filed the class action lawsuit on September 6, 2016. While Hardware Resources denies all accusations, the company agreed to a preliminary settlement to the amount of $11,750,000 on July 7, 2017. Expected distributions are to be approximately $225-230 per fax received. This comes only a few short years after Craftwood Lumber pushed Interline Brands to a $40 million settlement for similar violations. The final hearing to approve the settlement comes later this month.

Class Counsel

  • C. Darryl Cordero (Payne & Fears LLP)
  • Charles R. Watkins (Guin Stokes & Evans LLC)

Defense Counsel

  • Sean G. Wieber (Winston & Strawn LLP)

Settlement Website

Contact

  • Mail: PO Box 404000, Louisville, KY 40233-4000
  • Phone: 1-855-202-3382
  • Fax: 310-751-1883