Home Blog Page 182

Claim $60 in Terminix Robocall Class Action Settlement

0

Who is a Class Member

Anyone who was the recipient of an “autodialed payment and/or debt-collection call” from Terminix or any associated persons between the dates of August 22, 2012 and July 28, 2017.

*Anyone who provided consent to receive these calls will not qualify.


Settlement Amount

Terminix will provide sufficient funds to distribute $60 to each valid claim.


Proof of Purchase

Potential class members must verify ownership/possession of the cell phone which received debt-collection calls from Terminix.


Claim Form

class action lawsuits


Important Dates

08/22/2012 – 07/28/2017: Class Period

12/26/2017: Objection deadline.

12/26/2017: Exclusion deadline.

12/26/2017: Claim filing deadline.

02/23/2018: Final hearing.


Settlement Notes

  • Tomorrow Black-Brown, et al. v. Terminix International Company Limited Partnership
  • Case No. 1:16-cv-23607
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division

Class members of the Terminix robocall class action lawsuit contest that they received unlawfull debt-collection calls (and other prerecorded payments) from Terminix and related bodies without providing consent, leaving the defense in violation of the TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act). The present lawsuit is limited to an automatic dialing system during the class period: August 22, 2012 to July 28, 2017. Consent was given any time a cell phone number was provided IF it directly related to purchasing or receiving services from Terminix. Consent may have been revoked if Terminix was contacted.

The defense in the Terminix robocall lawsuit is limited to only Terminix International Company Limited Partnership, who represents subsidiaries. Terminix continues to deny any wrongdoing or liability, but has agreed to a settlement in an effort to avoid further litigation and release of any accusatory claims. The proposed settlement terms will award any valid claims with a cash distribution of $60 from Terminix, in addition to the payment of any accumulated counsel and administrative fees up to $295,000. Class representative Tomorrow Black-Brown will also seek a $5,000 service award for her representation of qualified members.

All class members who file valid claims in the case will be represented by Jonathan Cohen and John Yanchnuis (Morgan & Morgan).


Contact Information

Settlement Administrator
c/o Angeion Group.
1801 Market Street, Suite 660
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Email: TerminixTCPA@AdministratorClassAction.com


Settlement Website

www.TerminixTCPASettlement.com

Claim $10 per Drive in Optical Disk Drive Indirect Purchaser Class Action Settlement

0

Who is a Class Member

Anyone who purchased at least one of the following items offered by Panasonic, Hitachi, Sony, Phillips, Pioneer, or TEAC between April 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008.

Members only qualify when residents of Arizona, California, Washington D.C., Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, or Wisconsin.

*Panasonic Brand computers are not included in this settlement.


Settlement Amount

$180,000,000


Proof of Purchase

Yes.  Class members must file a claim prior to October 30, 2017 in addition to proof of purchase for any and all products built with an optical disc drive purchased between April 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008.


Claim Form

class action lawsuits


Important Dates

05/24/2017: Defense agrees to settlement.

09/14/2017: Final hearing for settled companies.

10/30/2017: Deadline to make claims.

02/12/2018: Hearing for remaining companies.


Settlement Notes

  • In re: Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litigation
  • Case No. 3:10-md-2143-RS
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division

Class members in the Optical Disk Drive class action lawsuit claim the defendants engaged in illegal action to fix the prices of optical disk drives. The resulting effect being that indirect purchasers of ODDs (products including ODDs such as computers) were unfairly priced. This settlement is the consolidation of multiple cases filed against the aforementioned companies following a criminal investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2009. Cases were not officially consolidated until 2010.

Members uncertain of their standing may contact a claims administrator. An optical disk drive is a device that allows data to be read to or from CDs, DVDs, and similar computer software systems.

Initial settlements amounted to $124,500,000 involving Sony, Hitachi-LG, Panasonic, and NEC. These agreements were agreed upon in March of 2017. Pioneer, PLDS, and TEAC filings were settled to an amount of $55,500,000 later in the year. While many of the cases have been addressed, several defense counsels remain at large. This list includes Ben!, Samsung, Toshiba, and Quanta Storage.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP will represent all class members. The defense counsel is represented as such:

Panasonic and NEC Corporation:
Winston & Strawn LLP

Hitachi-LG Data Storage:
Ropes & Gray LLP

Sony:
Schiller & Flexner LLP

Philips:
Baker Botts LLP

Pioneer:
Jones Day

TEAC:
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP


Contact Information

Claim Administrator:

ODD Products Indirect Purchaser Litigation
c/o Girardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 43424
Providence, RI 02940-3424

Phone: 877-368-9020

Email: info@opticaldiskdriveantitrust.com


Settlement Website

www.dollarsfordiskdrives.com

 

Claim $56 per week in California Wyndham Timeshare Wage Class Action Settlement

0

Who is a Class Member

Anyone who was employed as a commission-based Sales Representative in California for Wyndham in California between June 16, 2016 and July 22, 2017.


Settlement Amount

$7,300,000


Proof of Purchase

No proof required.


Potential Settlement Payment

According to the Wyndham settlement notice, Class Members may expect to receive an estimated $56.45 for each week they worked during the Class Period.

Claim Form

No claim form is required. Upon final settlement, qualifying class members will automatically receive payment.


Important Dates

06/16/2011- 07/11/2018: Inclusive dates for qualifying members.

11/13/2017: Deadline for individual exclusion.

1/22/2018: Final Hearing


Settlement Notes

  • Michelle Renee McGrath, et al. v. Wyndham Resort Development Corporation, et al.
  • Case No. 3:15-cv-01631 JM (KC)
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Class members in the California Wyndham timeshare wage and hour class action lawsuit contend that Wyndham Resort Development Corporation and associated corporations failed to properly reimburse potential clients for a litany of working duties. The list includes failure to pay employees for full-time worked, failure to pay for overtime hours, failure to comply with California labor laws in respect to working breaks, failure to pay termination wages, failure to properly itemize wage statements, and the culminating effect of being violation of Unfair Business Practices Act.

The listed defendants in the California Wyndham lawsuit are Wyndham Resort Development Corporation, Wyndham Worldwide Operations Incorporated, and Wyndham Vacation Ownership Incorporated. These respective entities are limited to operations in the state of California for these claims.

Wyndham denies all allegations and defend themselves against violation of the state’s labor laws. Despite their standing, the defense has agreed to a preliminary settlement in an effort to avoid persisting litigation. Qualifying class members will see a share of the approved settlement in accordance to the number of weeks each individual worked during the class period (estimated ~$56 per week).

All valid class members will be represented by associates of Cohelan Khoury & Singer: Isam C. Koury, Diana M. Koury, and Jeff Geraci; in addition to those of Farnaes & Lucio APC: Malte L. L. Farnaes, Christina M. Lucio, and Mitchell J. Murray. Wyndham will be defended by Sabrina L. Shadi and Shareef S. Farag of Baker & Hostetler LLP.


Contact Information

McGrath v. Wyndham Class Action Settlement Claims Administrator
c/o Rust Consulting Inc. – 5797
P.O. Box 2396
Fairbault, MN 55021-9096

Phone: 1-877-456-1101
Fax: 1-866-645-5839


Settlement Website

www.CATimeshareCommissionSalesSettlement.com

Bank of America Mortgage Modification Class Action Lawsuit

7

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America claiming they wrongly rejected mortgage modification agreements.  Plaintiffs Stacie and Adam Rhodes claim that Bank of America are not honoring their own mortgage modification agreements.  The case is entitled Rhodes v. Bank of America NA, and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

According to the plaintiffs Bank of America rejected their permanent mortgage modification agreement and then foreclosed on their home in July 2017.  Stacie and Adam Rhodes claim they received a letter from BOA stating that the rejection was due to the notary’s printed name and signature was missing on the notary’s middle initial.

Plaintiffs Stacie and Adam Rhodes are being represented by the law firm of Kelly & Crandell PLC (Kristi C. Kelly, Andrew J. Guzzo and Casey S. Nash).  Stacie and Adam Rhodes are seeking award payouts for damages and for Bank of America to honor their loan modifications.