Another class action lawsuit has been filed against Verizon Wireless in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  The case is entitled Joseph Ruwe, et al. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.  The lawsuit claims that VW violated California state law by charging consumers fixed fees for late charges and reconnections, regardless to the cost of the plan paid for.  Customers complained that they were charged a fixed $5 late fee if the bill was not paid on time and another $15 fee to have reconnection restored.  So if you have a Verizon Wireless device and missed your payment not only would you be charged once for the late fee but you would be charged another fee just to have the service reactivated.  Class members contend that this violates California consumer protection laws that make such flat fees illegal.  A $10,000,000 class settlement has been proposed in this case.

Class members include anyone who were charged a $5.00 late fee between June 12, 2003, and July 20, 2012 or a $15.00 reconnect fee between Dec. 1, 2004, and April 26, 2012.  The Verizon Wireless Fee Class Action Settlement administrators website has not been developed as of yet but please check back for more updates in the case.  Attorneys in the case include a Ms. Shana E. Scarlett and a Jeff D. Friedman.

www.hbsslaw.com/verizon-wireless

The Krossland Calling Card Class Action Lawsuit claims that Krossland did not disclose the applicable rates, fees and charges as required by law when selling pre-paid calling cards between the years of 2004 to 2012.  The class action lawsuit is styled Carol Galvan, et al. v. Krossland Communications, Inc and is in the jurisdiction of the Central District of California – Southern Division Court.  Krossland has denied all claims of wrong doing but has agreed to settle in order to avoid a costly, drawn out court battle.

Class members in the case include anyone in the United States, between August 26, 2004 and May 21, 2012 who purchased a pre-paid calling card where Krossland was the distributor.  Please note that calling cards provided by Locus, AT&T, T-Mobile, Boost, Total Call or IDT are not included in the lawsuit.  A maximum settlement amount any class member can receive under the proposed settlement is $16.00 and a settlement fairness hearing is scheduled for August 27, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.  The hearing will be held at 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, California 92701 in the Central District of California – Southern Division Court.  You do not have to attend this hearing in order to participate in the settlement.  You will have to file a timely and valid claim form however.  KrosslandSettlement.com will provide a claim form and they must be postmarked by December 10, 2012.  If you would like to object to the Krossland Calling lawsuit settlement you have until 07/27/12 to do so.  All exclusion request must be made before 08/06/12.  Other court documents besides the claim form can be found at the class administrators website and include the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, Preliminary Approval Order, Motion for Preliminary Approval and the Settlement Agreement.  Adobe Reader will be needed in order to view these documents.

This Krossland Calling Card Lawsuit was filed on September 5, 2008 seeks damages and restitution of funds that Krossland acquired from Plaintiffs. Who would have guessed that simple item as a calling card could cause a multi million dollar lawsuit.  Please check back for further updates as the case evolves.

www.KrosslandSettlement.com

Female employees of Wal-Mart have recently filed charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming they were denied equal pay and promotions when compared to their male counterparts.  These complaints are filed against Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club.  The complaints date back to 1998.  These women claim that not only were men paid more at Wal-Mart but they were also more likely to be promoted over women.  This sounds like the old he said she said game.  Plaintiffs of the case include Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson, Chris Kwapnoski, Deborah Gunter and Edith Arana, who worked at Wal-Mart’s Duarte California store.  Not only do these plaintiffs represent themselves but also all women at Wal-Mart who feel like they were discriminated against.  The EEOC charges were filed in 48 states, encompassing every Wal-Mart retail region of the United States and a total of 7 law firms are working together on this case to ensure the women receive a fair trial.

Potential class members of the case include anyone who worked at Wal-Mart between December 26, 1998 to the present time and believe they were a victim of discrimination.  Plaintiffs are seeking loss wages and of course punitive damages.  A potential class member does not need to act now in order to file a claim.  Please visit WalmartClass.com for updates as they become available.  The following seven law firms will represent the plaintiffs: Impact Fund (Brad Seligman and Jocelyn Larkin); Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (Joseph M. Sellers, Christine Webber, Jenny Yang and Kalpana Kotagal);  Equal Rights Advocates (Arcelia Hurtado and Noreen Farrell); Davis, Cowell and Bowe (Steve Stemerman and Betty Lawrence); The Tinkler Law Firm (Stephen Tinkler); The Bennett Firm (Merit Bennett and Talia V. Kosh); Public Justice Center (Debra Gardner); The Law Office of Sheila Y. Thomas, Oakland, CA; Gillespie, Rozen & Watsky, (Hal K. Gillespie).  The case will either go to trail or a settlement agreement will be reached before hand to avoid a lengthy drawn out court trail.  Please check back for more updates.

www.WalmartClass.com

Syngenta is the subject of a class action lawsuit claiming drinking water provided by the company contained the weed killer Atrazine.  Imagine pouring an ice cold glass of water after a hard days work only to be drinking a weed killer chemical!  This chemical is used to control and eliminate weeds on corn, sorghum and sugar cane, it is not made for human consumption.  The lawsuit is entitled City of Greenville v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., and Syngenta AG (www.AtrazineSettlement.com) and Syngenta denies any wrongdoing in the case.  The settlement amount is proposed at $105 million dollars to be distributed to Community Water Systems users who file timely claim forms.  The lawsuit dates back to 2010 and is Case Number 3:10-cv-00188-JPG-PMF.  A settlement fairness hearing will be held on 10/22/2012 to decide if the settlement is fair and reasonable among other things.  The hearing will start at 1:30pm and you are not required to attend the hearing in order to participate in the settlement.

Class members are considered any Community Water System (CWS) in the U.S that can show a measurable amount of Atrazine was found in the water supply through a qualifying test result.  The settlement amount any one class member will receive has not yet been determined and will depend on several factors such as the number of claims filed and how long ago and how much atrazine was detected in your water.

All class members must file a valid claim form by August 28, 2012 in order to participate in the settlement.  All exclusions and objections to the Atrazine Contaminated Water Lawsuit Settlement are due no later than August 28, 2012.  Please see the class administrators portal for more information on how to file an objection or exclusion request.  A class member can also write to Syngenta Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 2002, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2002 for more information about the case.  The settlement notice, long from notice and the joint motion for preliminary approval can be found at the website as well.  The Honorable J. Phil Gilbert has been assigned to this class action lawsuit hearing.

www.AtrazineSettlement.com

A class action lawsuit entitled James Collins et al. v. GameStop Corp has been filed against GameStop in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  The lawsuit claims that GameStop sold games that included FREE downloadable content.  The only problem, via the lawsuit, is the content was not free and consumers had to fork over an additional $15.00 to access the content.  GameStop denies all wrong doing but has agreed to a settlement to avoid a lengthy expensive trail.  A settlement fairness hearing will be held on September 17, 2012 to determine if the settlement is fair and reasonable.  The hearing will be located at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Courtroom 12, U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102 and will be ruled by Judge Thelton E. Henderson.  The law firms of Initiative Legal Group APC and Baron & Budd P.C. have been assigned to the case.

Class members of the GameStop Downloadable Content Class Action Settlement include anyone in the state of California who purchased a video game from GameStop with free downloadable content and then the downloadable content was not available to used game purchasers without additional payment.  The purchase must have took place between the dates of March 23, 2006 through April 9, 201.  To take part in the lawsuit a class member must file a claim form no later than July 19, 2012.

The settlement includes two options to class members who qualify.  Option one provides a $10 payment and a $5 GameStop store credit and provide proof of purchase.  Option two includes a $5 payment and a $10 GameStop store credit without proof of purchase.  Class members who opt for option two will do so UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY (aka Roger Clemens).  All settlement objections are due by July 16, 2012.  A class member looking to opt out of the lawsuit must do so by July 16, 2012.  All questions should be directed to the class counsel and not GameStop.

www.GameStopSettlement.com