Home Blog Page 182

Sterling Jewelers Facing Call Recording Class Action Lawsuit

0

A California woman has filed a class action suit claiming that Sterling Jewelers recorded calls without their knowledge. According to the plaintiff, Yvonne Madrid of San Diego, Sterling called her one morning. The call was being recorded, but the Sterling representative didn’t inform the customer of that until the very end, and only when the customer asked. Under California law, it’s illegal to record a phone conversation without someone’s knowledge. Customers who shopped at Sterling Jewelers may be eligible for compensation thanks to a new class action lawsuit.

Sterling would call the plaintiff again on the same day, and again did not inform the customer that the call was being recorded. This led the plaintiff to believe that Sterling Jewelers is actually recording all of their outgoing phone calls without letting the customers know this is happening. According to filings, the plaintiff was personally affected by this recording, and she was “shocked, upset and angry” that she was recorded without her knowledge.

The class action law suit against Sterling for recording phone calls uses California Penal Code 632 as its main argument, which is actually much more strict that federal law on this matter. California’s consumer laws are regarded as some of the most consumer friendly in the nation, and this is no different.  The law reads specifically that anyone who intentionally records a phone call using an electronic device without consent of everyone involved in the phone call will be punished by a fine up to $2,000 or even imprisonment for one year. The second issue, invading customer’s privacy, also carried a fine of $2,500, meaning that there’s the potential for a $5,000 fine for each customer this happened to.

And even though the company is in Ohio, when they called a California phone number, they came under California state and their strict laws. The plaintiff in this law suit says there’s no way for Sterling Jewelers to determine how many people they called, so she’s initiating a class action law suit for people to join on this own.

Sterling Call Recording Class Action Lawsuit Notes

  • Two main cases are being brought against Sterling Jewelers: the first being that they illegally recorded customer cell phone conversations (made illegal under California Penal Code 632). The second charge is that they invaded customer privacy and intruded into customer’s private affairs
  • Sterling Jewelers is actually a large group of jewelry stores that are all owned by the same parent company, known as Signet Jewelers. Their physical stores can be found mostly in states like Ohio, Georgia, Deleware, and Minnesota, and go by names like Weisfield Jewelers, Marks & Morgan Jewelers, LeRoy’s Jewelers, Goodman Jewelers, and Osterman Jewelers
  • No official means of making a claim have been set up yet, but people who are interested in following this cell phone call recording lawsuit against Sterling can watch out for news about the lawsuit titled “Yvonne Madrid v. Sterling Jewelers,” which is currently case number 3:17-cv-01711-CAB-BGS in the Southern District of California’s US District Court

Sunbelt Rentals Fee Class Action Settlement

0

Who is a Class Member

  • Class members in the Sunbelt class action lawsuit are defined as anyone in the United States who entered a rental out contract with Sunbelt and the contract contained the following language: “RENTAL RATES. … . Customer is responsible for … (ii) delivery and pickup costs to and from the Store; … (vi) fuel used during the Rental Period (Customer may either return the Equipment fully fueled or a fuel charge shall be assessed (designed to cover Sunbelt’s direct and indirect costs of refueling the Equipment))”

Settlement Amount

  • The exact amount of money any one class member will receive is not known at this time but the amount will be a percentage of the total amount paid by the class member filing the claim (this percentage will be based on Sunbelt business records)

Proof Purchase

  • Proof of purchase is not required but class members are more than welcome to submit their Sunbelt invoice

Claim Form

Sunbelt Rental Fees Class Action Lawsuit Notes

  • All-South Subcontractors Inc., et al. v. Sunbelt Rentals Inc.,
  • Case No. 1:14-CV-1376-1

The Sunbelt Rental Fee class action lawsuit is pending in the Superior Court of Dougherty County, State of Georgia and revolves around claim that Sunbelt improperly charged class members excessive fees for transporting and refueling rental equipment.  Sunbelt Rentals Inc. denies any actions of wrong doing but has agreed to a $10,000,000 settlement in order to avoid the unknown cost of a trial.

Class members will be represented by Price Armstrong LLC and Henninger Garrison Davis LLC.  Sunbelt Rentals Inc. has retained the services of Lawrence D. Silverman from Ackerman LLP.  Class members do not have to worry about paying their attorneys as they will receive a slice of the settlement pot.

SBR Fee Settlement class members will received their settlement in the form of a check.  Class members can earn a 20% bonus in relation to their settlement payment if they agree to receive their settlement as a credit toward a future rental from Sunbelt Rentals.  Class Action Wallet advises class members to simply take the money unless they know for a fact they will use the credit in the near future.

Important Dates

  • October 19, 2017: Exclusions must be received by this date
  • October 19, 2017: Objections must be received by this date
  • November 2, 2017: Final Fairness Hearing at 1 pm
  • January 1, 2018: Claim form deadline

Contact Information

  • Mail: SBR Fee Settlement c/o Angeion Group, Suite 660, 1801 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
  • Phone: 1-855-862-9823
  • Email: SBRfeeSettlement@AdministratorClassAction.com

Settlement Websites

Collecto TCPA Class Action Settlement

1

Who is a Class Member

  • Class members in the Collecto TCPA class action lawsuit are defined as anyone in the United States who received a  cellular phone call from Collecto using an automated dialer between the dates of July 23, 2009 to June 30, 2014 and the person never had an agreement with the creditor for whom Collecto sought to collect

Settlement Amount

  • Up to $200 depending on how many phone calls the class member received

Proof of Purchase

  • Class members must provide the telephone number in which the calls were received and the claim ID number (the claim ID will be located on the postcard above the class members name and address – starts with COL)

Claim Form

Collecto, Inc. TCPA Litigation Notes

  • In re: Collecto, Inc. TCPA Litigation, Case No. 14-md-2513-RG
  • United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has jurisdiction over this proposed settlement

Class members in the Collecto TCPA class action lawsuit contend that Collecto Inc. violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) when they used an “automatic telephone dialing systems,” to place calls to collect debts to cellular telephone numbers between July 23, 2009 and June 30, 2014.  Class members contend that they did not provide consent to receive these type of calls and making the calls violated the federal law.  Collecto, Inc. denies any actions of wrong doing and the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing.

A settlement fairness hearing will take place at the United States District Court, Courtroom 21, 7th Floor, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02210 on 1/17/18 to discuss if the proposed settlement is fair and to consider the Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and expenses.

Important Dates

  • November 27, 2017: claim form deadline
  • January 17, 2018: settlement fairness hearing
  • November 27, 2017: exclusion deadline

Contact Information

  • Mail: Collecto, Inc. TCPA Litigationc/o ILYM Group, Inc., P. O. Box 2031, Tustin, CA 92781
  • Email: claims@ilymgroupclassaction.com
  • Phone: (855) 309-1484
  • Fax: (888) 845-6185

Settlement Website

Hertz Parking Violation Fee Class Action Settlement

0

Who is a Class Member

  • Class members in the Hertz Parking Violation class action lawsuit are defined as anyone in the United States who were charged an administrative fee (also known as a handling fee) in regards to a parking ticket issued for the rental vehicle, paid that administrative or handling fee, paid the parking ticket on time, and did not receive any refund or adjustment for the administrative or handling fee between the dates of April 1, 2008 and April 30, 2017

Settlement Amount

  • $20: class members who provide documentation that they paid their parking ticket on time
  • $10: class members who do not provide such documentation but whose claims are still determined to be valid

Proof of Purchase

  • Class members need to provide documentation showing they paid their fee on time when filing a claim (i.e. cancelled check, bank statement, credit card receipt, credit card statement, etc)
  • Class members who are not able to provide proof must provide statement showing that they made an effort to obtain it from the city, county, or jurisdiction who issued the ticket, but were unsuccessful (this statement may come in the form of the name and telephone number the class member spoke with at the issuing authority office)

Claim Form

Pauley v. Hertz Global Holdings Inc., et al.,

Class members contend that Hertz improperly charged its renters administrative or handling fees for parking violations.  Hertz denies any actions of wrong doing but has agreed to create a 2 million dollar settlement fund in order to avoid further litigation.  Plaintiff James Pauley original filed this class action lawsuit back in November of 2013 when to his surprise Hertz charged him an administrative fee even though he paid the parking ticket of on time.  Mr. Pauley claims that Hertz violated its own rental agreement.

Important Dates

  • 11/30/17: CLAIM FORM DEADLINE
  • 11/1/17: EXCLUSION DEADLINE
  • 11/1/17: OBJECTION DEADLINE
  • 11/16/17: FINAL APPROVAL HEARING AT 9:00 A.M.

Contact Information

Settlement Website