|
|
|
Calif Supreme Court rules on illegal local taxes
Class Action |
2011/07/26 09:15
|
Ruling in a Los Angeles case, the California Supreme Court has ruled taxpayers can file class-action claims when seeking refunds from cities and counties for illegal local taxes.
Monday's unanimous ruling overturns lower-court rulings requiring taxpayers to file individual refund claims.
In class action claims, an individual can win damages for an entire group of people affected by the same unlawful action.
The San Francisco Chronicle says Estuardo Ardon sued the city of Los Angeles in 2006, claiming a city telephone tax was illegal because it was linked to a federal excise tax that had been ruled invalid. The suit seeks millions of dollars in refunds for all phone customers in the city.
But the case has remained on hold while state courts determined whether Ardon can represent a group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action over L.A. telephone tax may proceed, court rules
Class Action |
2011/07/26 09:14
|
A class action lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles for a refund of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in telephone taxes may proceed as a result of a unanimous ruling Monday by the California Supreme Court.
The ruling, written by Justice Ming W. Chin, upheld the right of citizens to bring class actions against municipal governments for collection of allegedly illegal taxes.
The decision will affect similar lawsuits against Los Angeles County, Long Beach and Chula Vista, lawyers in the case said. The suits claim that the governments have illegally taxed telephone users. The tax appears on phone bills.
The case against L.A. was filed in 2006. The city argued that the taxpayers should have filed individual claims for refunds before bringing a class action and won in the trial court and the appeals court.
As a result of Monday's ruling, "It's possible we will consider bringing actions against other jurisdictions," said Frank Gregorek, who argued the case for the taxpayer. The class that would recover funds would include all residents who paid the taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bank of Hawaii settles overdraft fee class-action lawsuit
Class Action |
2011/07/20 09:35
|
A tentative $9 million settlement with Bank of Hawaii requires the bank to pay each of its customers who had more than one overdraft fee in a day over the last five years.
Bank of Hawaii, the state's second-largest bank, reached the class-action lawsuit settlement in response to claims that the bank improperly charged overdraft fees on debit card transactions, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported Tuesday.
The lawsuit accused the bank of systematically re-ordering debit card transactions from highest dollar amount to lowest dollar amount, a practice that allowed the bank to deplete customers' available funds as quickly as possible while maximizing the number of overdraft fees.
The $9 million will be put in a settlement fund used to refund customers and pay attorneys' fees, administrative and other costs in exchange for a complete release of all claims against the company, the bank said. It's unclear how many Bank of Hawaii customers are eligible for refunds.
Similar lawsuits against American Savings Bank and Central Pacific Bank, the state's third- and fourth-largest banks, also are pending. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer defends Nevada truck firm in Amtrak crash
Class Action |
2011/07/11 00:53
|
A lawyer for the Nevada trucking company whose tractor-trailer slammed into an Amtrak train, killing six people, defended the company’s safety record Thursday and said it was not at fault in two previous accidents cited in state safety records.
John Davis Trucking Co. has been cooperating with local, state and federal investigators and is as anxious as anyone to learn why the driver who died in the June 24 crash ignored flashing lights and crossing gates before skidding the length of a football field into the side of the train, Steven Jaffe of Las Vegas said.
But he said four negligence lawsuits filed against the Battle Mountain company — combined with the ongoing investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board — has kept the brothers who own the family-run business from sharing information that would help shed more light on the tragedy.
“There’s a lot more than meets the eye,” Jaffe told The Associated Press. “I think when it all comes down to it, the public is going to see a very different John Davis Trucking than was originally put out there.
“I believe the evidence will show their conduct was defensible in all of this,” he said. “I have a great deal of trust in the legal system, and if some day we go in front of a jury, I’m confident it will give us the chance to say that we did everything right.”
Federal records reviewed by the AP show the state Department of Public Safety cited the company for 16 vehicle maintenance violations over the past two years and noted it had been involved in two crashes during that period, including one in February 2010 that injured a person in Washoe County.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Google Wi-Fi snooping lawsuits can proceed
Class Action |
2011/07/10 00:52
|
A federal judge has refused Google's plea to dismiss several class-action lawsuits accusing the Internet search giant of illegally collecting online information from unencrypted wireless networks while working on its "Street View" map feature.
Google has acknowledged that its fleet of specialized "Street View" vehicles inadvertently gathered about 600 gigabytes of Wi-Fi data in more than 30 countries while photographing neighborhoods.
The Mountain View, Calif.-based company apologized and maintains it never used the data. It also argues it did nothing illegal because the Wi-Fi data was publicly available like radio transmissions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action Against Biomimetic Therapeutics
Class Action |
2011/07/07 10:00
|
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. ("BMTI" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. The class action in the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased BMTI securities from October 14, 2009 through May 11, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. BMTI's product, Augment(TM) Bone Graft ("Augment"), is a fully synthetic, off-the-shelf bone growth factor product for the treatment of bone defects and injuries. The Company's primary focus is obtaining market approval for Augment, and preparing for the anticipated commercial launch of Augment in the United States, the European Union and Australia. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants conditioned investors to believe that FDA approval of Augment would be forthcoming through a host of materially false and misleading statements regarding the status of Augment's ongoing clinical studies, and the safety and efficacy of the Company's product. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts regarding: (a) the Company's business, operations, management, future business prospects and the intrinsic value of BMTI's common stock; (b) the safety and efficacy of Augment and its prospects for FDA approval; and (c) the woeful inadequacies of Augment's clinical trials. As a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 10, 2011, the FDA published briefing documents on Augment that were critical of Augment's clinical trial, stating the "FDA still has clinical concerns with the safety and overall risk/benefit of the device at this time, primarily due to the unanswered question of safety in regards to the potential for cancer formation versus an unproven benefit in the current standard for care." On this news, BMTI's stock price plummeted approximately $4.73 or over 35% and closed at $8.66 on unusually heavy volume. On May 13, 2011, BMTI disclosed that the FDA Panel voted by a narrow margin of 10-8 in favor of Augment's efficacy, making it highly unlikely that the device will receive FDA approval without requiring additional trials, substantially delaying the launch of the product. As a result of the news regarding the narrow Panel vote, BMTI shares declined nearly 12% or $1.095 and closed at $8.105. If you are a shareholder who purchased BMTI securities during the Class Period, you have until September 6, 2011 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
Toyota class action suit to start with Utah case
Class Action |
2011/06/24 22:26
|
The first lawsuit to go to trial in a massive class action against Toyota Motor Corp. over acceleration problems that led the company to recall 14 million cars will involve a crash that killed two people in western Utah, a federal judge said Friday.
U.S. District Judge James Selna told attorneys the case of 38-year-old Charlene Jones Lloyd and 66-year-old Paul Van Alfen, whose Toyota Camry slammed into a wall in Utah in 2010, is scheduled to go to trial in February 2013.
The case - Van Alfen v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. - will be the first of several bellwether lawsuits, intended to determine how the rest of the litigation will proceed.
Selna wrote in a tentative order that he hoped the selection would "markedly advance these proceedings."
"The Court believes that selection of a personal injury/wrongful death case is most likely the type of case to meet that goal," Selna said.
Toyota said it welcomes the Utah case as the first suit to reach court.
"We are pleased that the initial bellwether will address plaintiffs' central allegation of an unnamed, unproven defect in Toyota vehicles, as every claim in the multi-district litigation rests upon this pivotal technical issue," the company said in a statement.
Toyota has previously argued the plaintiffs have been unable to prove that a design defect in its electronic throttle control system is responsible for vehicles surging unexpectedly. It has instead blamed driver error, faulty floor mats and sticky accelerator pedals.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|