Home Blog Page 184

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


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


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


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