Home Blog Page 193

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

 

CITGO TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Settlement

2

Who is a Class Member

  • Anyone in the United States who received a text message from CITGO in August, October and/or November 2016

Settlement Amount

  • The $8 million dollar settlement will be distributed on a pro rata basis which means the amount any one class members receives will depend on the total amount of claims filed

Proof of Purchase

  • Class members will be required to provide the cell phone number in which the text messages were received and declare under the penalty of perjury

Claim Form

Matthew Gottlieb v. CITGO Petroleum Corporation

  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Palm Beach Division
  • Case No. 9:16-cv-81911-RLR

The CITGO TCPA class action lawsuit revolves around claims that CITGO Petroleum Corporation Inc. violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending text messages to consumers cell phones without their prior written consent.  The text messages in question were related to a sweepstakes that CITGO was trying to push from 2014 to 2016.  Plaintiff Matthew Gottlieb claims he received three text messages from CITGO in regards to sweepstakes and promotions in an attempt to get him to become a contestant.  According to the class action lawsuit around 93,000 text messages were sent to class member like Matthew Gottieb without their written consent.

CITGO denies any actions of wrong doing but have agreed to a 8 million dollar settlement fund in order to avoid the unknown cost associated with a trial.

Class members who file valid claims will be represented by Jeff M. Ostrow, Avi R. Kaufman, Scott Edelsberg, and Andrew J. Shamis.  Class members do not have to pay the attorneys as they will simply take a cut of the settlement pot.  CITGO Petroleum Corporation Inc. will be represented by Scott Solberg from the law firm of Elmer Stahl LLP.

Important Dates

  • Claim form deadline: 12/14/17
  • Object or Exclude Yourself from the Settlement: 10/30/17
  • Fairness Hearing: 11/29/17 at 11am ET (class members are not required to attend the fairness hearing in order to receive a slice of the 8 million dollar settlement pie)

Contact Information

Settlement Website

Uber Safe Rideshare Class Action Settlement

0

Who is a Class Member?

  • Class members in the case are defined as anyone who used the Uber safe ride service to purchase as ride from Uber from Jan. 1, 2013 and Jan. 31, 2016

Settlement Amount

  • Amount varies per class member but in general class members will receive $0.25 for their first ride on an Uber service that charged an Uber safe rides fee, then a per-ride amount for every additional such ride

Proof of Purchase

  • Class members need to submit the Class Member Identification Number (this number will be emailed to class members)

Claim Form

Important Dates

  • Claim form deadline: 1/8/18
  • Exclusion date: 1/8/18
  • Settlement fairness hearing: February 8, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. PST

McKnight, et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc.,

  • Case No. 3:14-cv-05615-JST
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Matthew Philliben and Bryon McKnight iniated the lawsuit back in December of 2104 that challenged Uber’s assertions that it runs thorough background checks on its UberX and UberXL drivers.  Uber has agreed to a settlement fund of $32,500,000 and the settlement also places new restrictions on the way it advertises its driver background checks.

The Uber Safe Ride Share Settlement revolves around claims that Uber did not do enough to screen drivers associated with their safe ride service.  Customers could elect to pay an additional one dollar to have an Uber driver that agreed to a background check (which in turn is suppose to make the driver safer).  Class members contend that these background checks were inadequate as it only made the would be Uber driver submit their name, contact information, driver’s license number and Social Security number through an Uber website (despite the fact that Uber decsribed these background checks as “industry leading” checks).  The “woefully inadequate” background check did not require a fingerprint check or any in-person contact between the prospective driver and an Uber representative, according to the plaintiffs.

Contact Information

  • Mail: McKnight v. Uber SettlementRideshare Settlement Administratorc/o Epiq SystemsPO Box 3967Portland, OR 97208-3967
  • Phone: 1-877-797-6083
  • Email: info@RideshareSettlement.com

Settlement Website