Wichita Personal Injury Lawyer - Class Action

NovaStar to Settle Class Action Lawsuit

Chrissie Cole — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 00:06:22 GMT

NovaStar Mortgage has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit for $5.1 million. The suit alleges the lender hid fees it paid to brokers for referring Washington homeowners to higher rate loans.

The settlement, reached Thursday, affects over 1,600 borrowers within the state.

Plaintiffs sued NovaStar, of Kansas City, Mo., last fall, claiming the lender did not disclose the "yield spread premium" fee it paid to brokers, as required by law, or did not disclose the fees until closing, when it was too late for borrowers to back out.

"We're not challenging the legality of yield spread premium," said one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs. "This case was about, 'If you're going to pay a fee that's ultimately going to come out of the borrower's side, you have to tell them about it.'

Members of the class action lawsuit will each recover an average of $2,000 and a high of $20,000.

NovaStar contends they settled "to avoid further legal costs and allow the company to move forward." According to the settlement agreement, NovaStar will pay $3.3 million to the plaintiffs and $1.8 million in attorney fees.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

Greenies Class-Action Lawsuit Filed

Christina Cole — Tue, 22 May 2007 22:57:05 GMT

A new Greenies class action lawsuit has been filed in New York. This time the suit is against Petco and its food distributor Pet Food Experts Inc.

The plaintiff's of the lawsuit filed in state court, Tuesday, are requesting reimbursement on their purchases of the original Greenies dental chews for dogs between June 2001 and May 2007.

Ten pet owners from eight different states filed a class action lawsuit last year, joining individual wrongful death and product liability lawsuits that were filed in Los Angeles and New York.

In each case, the plaintiffs accuse S&M NuTec, Kansas City Greenies manufacture, of being aware dangers Greenies posed for dogs but refused to properly warn consumers or recall the product from stores.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christina Cole

Sprint Sued in Class Action Lawsuit(2)

Christina Cole — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:09:27 GMT

Former Sprint Call Center employees - one in Oklahoma City and the other in Texas are suing Sprint Nextel Corporation. The suit is a collective action, similar to a class action lawsuit, but the potential plaintiffs need to take steps to become members of the class action and join the lawsuit.

One of the women states the company didn't pay their call center employees overtime. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Kansas City, Kansas, and it states Sprint Nextel didn't allow call center employees to record their work hours.

It also says Sprint provided the workers with time sheets showing they worked 40 hours a week, even if they had worked more hours.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christina Cole

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Walgreens

Christina Cole — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:55:28 GMT

On Wednesday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a class action lawsuit against Walgreens Co. for allegedly discriminating against African-American management workers.

The suit was prompted in part from a Kansas City store manager that alleges the drugstore chain assigned black managers to low-performing stores and to stores only in African-American communities and has denied black workers promotion opportunities in violation of federal civil rights laws.

"Essentially, Walgreens has made store assignments based on race," said EEOC district director.
"What I saw was African-Americans being assigned to stores in African-American clientele locations, a decision I felt was solely based on race," Tucker said. "I also felt that African-Americans weren't promoted within the company as easily as others and that we were given the low-profit, high-shrink, the low-sales-volume stores, and that affected our compensation."

An EEOC attorney in Kansas City, has said 10,000 to 12,000 current and former Walgreens employees can become plaintiffs in this nationwide lawsuit.

The EEOC lawsuit seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages for the plaintiffs and asks the court to order Walgreens to discontinue the practice.
Race-based discrimination claims, historically the most frequent complaint filed with the agency, have increased markedly in the past 15 years and accounted for 36 percent of the EEOC's caseload in fiscal 2006

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christina Cole

Class Action Lawsuit against Wal-Mart Largest in History

Christina Cole — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 02:54:57 GMT

A Federal appeals court decision to allow a complaint alleged against Wal-Mart by six women to go ahead with a class action case, is the largest sex discrimination class action lawsuit in American history to date.

To sum it up, this decision means, over one million present and past female Wal-Mart employees might seek compensation. This action could end up costing Wal-Mart billions of dollars!

The courts did not rule on the merits of the cause but they did uphold a 2004 lower court in favor of allowing the case to continue on as class-action issue. As you may have guessed, Wal-Mart is expected to appeal.

The ruling has given hope to long-suffering Wal-Mart staff, to citizens who support social justice and to groups working to expose and correct the anti-labour tactics employed by the world's largest retailer.
"Wal-Mart may have the best legal team money can buy - but even the fanciest of corporate lawyers can't stop the largest class-action lawsuit in U.S. history," says David Nassar Wal-Mart Watch.
"Thanks to the determination of current and former Wal-Mart employees, their dedicated counsel and the judicial wisdom of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Wal-Mart will face allegations that it actively discriminated against its female employees. This case could cost them close to $20 billion," Nassar predicts.

I wish I could say these charges being brought against Wal-Mart are shocking but indeed they aren't ...

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christina Cole

Costco Disappointed with Class-Action Decision

Christina Cole — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 02:32:42 GMT

Jim Sinegal, CEO of Costco, is "disappointed" with a San Francisco federal judge's decision to allow a class action discrimination case against the company to continue proceeding.

Sinegal said they will continue to defend themselves in the suit and they are optimistic that the company will prevail.

In a ruling last week, U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel decided the suit Ellis vs. Costco, could be certified as a class action. The plaintiffs in the case are alleging that Costco discriminated against women in promotions and that only 13% of their store managers are women, while half of the workers are female.

Sinegal, asserted in a statement, that Costco "has a well deserved reputation for being fair to their employees."
"It is obvious that there are more men than women in certain warehouse management positions, but statistics cited out of context do not always tell the whole story. We look forward to the opportunity to tell the whole story in the proper forum and at the right time," Sinegal said in a statement.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christina Cole

Toyota Settles Class Action Lawsuit

Christina Cole — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:16:07 GMT

Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. has come to a tentative agreement to settle a class action lawsuit by the owners of select Toyota and Lexus models whom made complaints that their engines were damaged by oil sludge. A Louisiana federal judge is expected to give final approval to the settlement on February 7, said Sam Butto, spokesman for Lexus.

The settlement applies to owners of specific 1997-2002 model year vehicles, like the Camry, some of which may have been damaged by engine oil gel and/or sludge.

In 2002, Toyota launched an expanded protection plan to cover any mechanical problems with the vehicles due to the oil sludge but some consumers made complaints that it wasn't sufficient and then sued the company.
"What the court settlement is doing is copying what we've already been doing the last four years," Butto said.
Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, the automaker will reimburse vehicle owners for the cost to repair oil sludge damage as well as other incidental costs for up to eight years from the date their vehicle was sold or leased.
The vehicle owners must have made reasonable efforts to keep up maintenance of their car, such as regular oil changes.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christina Cole

Settlement with Consolidated Workers Approved by Judge

Christina Cole — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 23:07:07 GMT

On Thursday, a Wichita judge approved a settlement agreement in a class action suit brought upon by employees of Consolidated Manufacturing.

Checks made out to the 98 employees involved in the suit should be sent before year end, said the employees' representative. "They have ten days, so theoretically they can issue them New Year's Eve," said Spahn.

The suite alleges the company violated Federal Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by failing to give workers a 60-day notice prior to a mass layoff. The company gave 120 employees 30-minutes notice on February 28th prior to shutting down its plant in Halstead.

Under the $240,000 settlement agreement approved by U.S. District Judge Monti L. Belot, the company does not admit it violated the law. Each employee is expected to receive about $1,600 to $1,700 after attorney fees are paid, but before state and federal withholding taxes are withdrawn.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christina Cole

Consolidated, Ex-employees, Agree to Terms in Class-Action Suit

Christina Cole — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:47:10 GMT

98 people that were laid off and filed suit, will end with judge's approval of agreement. Former employees of Consolidated Manufacturing have come to a tentative settlement agreement with the company in conjunction with February's unexpected mass layoff.

The agreement, still awaiting judge's approval, will end a class action lawsuit filed in June by 98 employees alleging the company violated federal Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

The law requires a company to give its employees at least 60 days notice if it plays to lay off more than 100 employees. Approximately 120 employees were given 30 minutes notice prior to the company shutting down its manufacturing plant on February. 28th. The company, does not admit to violating the act, contends it fell under the 'faltering company' exemption and they were not required to give notice.

A Dec. 21 hearing is set before a U.S. District judge in Wichita to consider the settlement agreement.
The proposed $240,000 settlement is about half what workers sought, said 27-year employee Bart Newberry, whose name titles the suit and who was selected by his co-workers to represent them. The suit sought pay and benefits for all employees for the 60 days.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christina Cole