|
|
|
No class-action for suits over Calif. fish kill
Class Action |
2011/08/09 02:21
|
An appeals court has rejected class-action status for a lawsuit prompted by efforts to kill off an invasive fish in Northern California.
The Sacramento Bee says the 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled last week that people suing the state had too little in common to comprise a single class and must sue individually.
In 2007, the state Fish and Game Department dumped thousands of gallons of poison into Lake Davis in Plumas County to kill the voracious northern pike. The lake was closed for several months.
The city of Portola and a number of businesses and property owners sued in 2009, arguing that the action caused a decline in tourism that hurt their income, property values and tax receipts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Class Action Lawsuits
Class Action |
2011/08/05 09:10
|
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Files Two Class Action Lawsuits on Behalf of Iowa Property Owners Alleging DuPont's Imprelis™ Herbicide Killed and Damaged Trees on Their Property
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, a national law firm representing victims of defective products and toxic substances, together with its partner law firms, has filed two class action lawsuits on behalf of Iowa residents alleging DuPont's Imprelis™ herbicide killed and damaged trees on their property. The first, brought by Daryl and Mary Ann Haley of Tipton, Iowa, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division (Case No. 1:11-cv-00085-LRRR). A second Imprelis™ lawsuit was filed on behalf of Nicholas L. Peters of Mars, Iowa, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Sioux City Division (Case No. 5:11-cv-04066-MWB). Both Complaints seeks class action status on behalf of property owners who have sustained damage as a result of Imprelis™.
Plaintiffs in both lawsuits allege Imprelis™ was applied to their lawns in accordance with directions and instructions supplied by DuPont. The Class Action Complaints allege that as a result of the Imprelis™ applications, the Plaintiffs suffered significant damage and harm to trees, and will continue to suffer even further damage to their lawn and garden because of Imprelis™. The lawsuits further allege that rather than being isolated incidents, thousands of trees have been reported as being infected by Imprelis™, and tens of thousands more reports are expected in the future.
Both lawsuits charge DuPont with, among other things, negligence, strict liability, breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranties. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief barring DuPont from continued sale of Imprelis™, and compensatory and other damages including the cost of replacing trees damaged by Imprelis™.
Imprelis™, brought to market by DuPont in October 2010, is designed to kill broadleaf weeds, including dandelion, clover and wild violet. It is touted by DuPont as an environmentally-friendly herbicide and an "innovative solution to control a wide spectrum of broadleaf weeds." According to a New York Times report, reports of dying trees possibly associated with Imprelis™ started surfacing around Memorial Day, and have since prompted warnings from extension services in several states. Imprelis™ is now suspected of causing the death of thousands of shallow-rooted trees, including willows, poplars and conifers, on lawns, golf courses, parks and cemeteries throughout the country. The reports have prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin gathering information on the tree deaths from state officials and DuPont.
DuPont acknowledged it was investigating reports of tree deaths and damage possibly associated with Imprelis™ in a letter to turf management professionals dated June 17, 2011. On July 27, 2011, the company issued another letter stating that in the course of its review, “We have observed tree injuries associated with Imprelis™, primarily on Norway spruce and white pine trees.” The problems appear to be concentrated in Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Wisconsin, DuPont said.
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP and its partner firms have now filed three class action lawsuits on behalf of property owners who claim to have sustained damage following application of Imprelis™. A previous lawsuit was filed on behalf of an Ohio property owner in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Case No. 1:11-cv-01517).
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP continues to receive reports of Imprelis™ tree death and damage from around the country, including from homeowners, golf courses, universities, arboretums, nurseries and orchards, parks and recreational sites, and cemeteries. Parker Waichman Alonso LLP is investigating these complaints on behalf of property owners who have sustained damages as a result of Imprelis™. More information regarding Imprelis™ side effects can be obtained at Parker Waichman Alonso LLP's DuPont Imprelis™ poisoning page. The page will be updated regularly as more information becomes available.
For more information regarding Imprelis™ class action lawsuits and Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, please visit http://www.yourlawyer.com or call 1-800-LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kansas workers seek to bar immigration questions
Class Action |
2011/08/03 08:38
|
Workers who filed a class-action lawsuit against a Kansas slaughterhouse for unpaid wages and overtime have asked a federal judge to bar Creekstone Farms Premium Beef from discovering their immigration status during the litigation.
The employees have asked U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren for a protective order prohibiting the Arkansas City meatpacker from receiving from the named plaintiffs — or any other workers who opt into the lawsuit — any information pertaining to their present names or any other names they may have used.
They also seek to avoid having to disclose their place of birth, Social Security number and any present or prior addresses. The plaintiff's motion also seeks an order protecting the workers from having to turn over to Creekstone Farms any tax returns or any other tax forms filed under any of their identities or having to disclose the dates and times of entry into the United States. They also want to avoid turning over all identification documents likely to lead to the discovery of their immigration status.
Their attorney, Mark Kistler, told The Associated Press Tuesday that the courts already have decided that these types of information which could lead to discovery of immigration status should be protected from discovery during a lawsuit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State Supreme Court rules on illegal taxes
Class Action |
2011/08/01 08:56
|
The state Supreme Court made it easier this week for California taxpayers to seek refunds from cities and counties, ruling that a claim of an illegal local tax can be pursued as a class action on behalf of everyone who was overcharged.
The unanimous decision Monday in a Los Angeles case overturned lower-court rulings requiring local taxpayers to file individual refund claims.
In a class action, a representative can win damages that are distributed to an entire group of people affected by the same unlawful action. Class-action status often determines whether a tax can be effectively challenged, said Paul Heidenreich, a lawyer for consumer organizations in the case.
"When only one person can sue at a time, there's little incentive to do so" with small amounts at stake, he said.
The ruling may not affect San Francisco, however. Deputy City Attorney Peter Keith said the city has ordinances that set rules for tax refund claims and prohibit class actions. He said the court allowed class-wide suits only when a city or county has no laws of its own regulating tax refunds.
Francis Gregorek, lawyer for the plaintiff in the Los Angeles case, said a future ruling may be needed to determine whether a city can shield itself from class actions.
Class actions have become a hotly contested legal battleground. The U.S. Supreme Court restricted their use in two California cases earlier this year, refusing to allow as many as 1.5 million women to sue Wal-Mart Stores Inc. as a group over pay and promotion practices, and rejecting class-wide arbitration of a cell phone customer's overcharge claim against AT&T.
Gregorek's client, Estuardo Ardon, sued Los Angeles in 2006, claiming that a city telephone tax was illegal because it was linked to a federal excise tax that had been ruled invalid. Gregorek said the suit seeks millions of dollars in refunds for all phone customers in the city and has led to challenges against similar taxes in other communities.
The case has remained on hold while state courts determined whether Ardon can represent other customers. An appellate court said he could sue only as an individual, citing the state Supreme Court's 1992 ruling that rejected class-action status for a challenge to the state's taxes on vehicles bought by Californians in other states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against JBI, Inc.
Class Action |
2011/08/01 01:56
|
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that a class action lawsuit for violations of the federal securities laws has been filed against JBI, Inc. /quotes/zigman/573088 JBII +5.11% based on allegations that the company issued materially misleading financial statements to the investing public. If you purchased JBI stock during the period from August 28, 2009 to July 20, 2011 you can join the class action and seek to recover your investment losses.
To join the JBI class action, visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com , or call Jonathan Horne, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The case is pending the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.
The Complaint alleges that JBI materially overstated its income in connection with its acquisition of JavaCo, Inc. in 2009. As part of the transaction JBI exchanged 1 million shares of its stock for $9,997,134 worth of media credits. The Complaint alleges that JBI's financial statements were false and misleading because (1) the media credits acquired by the Company in connection with the acquisition of JavaCo were substantially overvalued; (2) that the Company was improperly accounting for acquisitions; (3) that, as such, the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On May 21, 2010, JBI disclosed that its previously issued financial statements for the 2009 fiscal year and third quarter should no longer be relied upon. On July 14, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission advised the Company that it was recommending enforcement action against it and possibly one or more of its former officers in connection with the Company's issuing materially inaccurate financial statements.
News that JBI was required to restate its financial statements and was subject to an SEC enforcement action for violation of the federal securities laws has caused its stock price to drop substantially, damaging investors.
You may participate in the securities class action lawsuit to recover your investment losses. If you purchased JBI stock, please visit the website at http://rosenlegal.com to participate in the class action and to obtain more information. You may also contact Laurence Rosen or Phillip Kim of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at or lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action lawsuit filed over Antero drilling
Class Action |
2011/07/27 09:15
|
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Antero Resources alleging that the company's gas drilling activities in Battlement Mesa threaten the health of residents.
The suit was filed in Denver District Court on behalf of all 5,000 residents of the unincorporated community, which is located next to Parachute in western Garfield County.
An attorney representing the residents, Corey Zurbuch, says the suit argues that drilling exposes the people of Battlement Mesa to hazardous pollution.
Antero representatives, along with others in the industry, have long argued that their activities are not hazardous to the residents of Garfield County, according to the Glenwood Springs Post Independent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge nixes class-action lawsuit against Dow
Class Action |
2011/07/26 09:15
|
A judge in Saginaw says property owners who claim Dow Chemical Co. has spoiled their land cannot sue the company through a class-action lawsuit.
The decision means property owners will have to pursue the company on their own. As many as 2,000 believe they've been harmed by dioxin in the Tittabawassee River floodplain.
The Saginaw News says Judge Leopold Borrello on Monday cited a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited class-action lawsuits against corporations. The judge says anyone claiming harm from Dow pollution must undergo "highly individualized factual inquiries."
Dow attorney Kathleen Lang says the company is pleased with decision.
Dow has acknowledged polluting the Tittabawassee and Saginaw rivers and their floodplains with dioxins for much of the 20th century. Dioxins are chemical byproducts that may cause cancer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
