Home Blog Page 185

$300,000 Harcourt Hotel Housing Class Action Settlement

0
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
HarcourtClass@LawMMH.com
Settlement Website hooshmandlawgroup.com

 

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