Who knew that a crayon company could cause a class action lawsuit.  The Crayola Washable Colored Bubbles was sold as colored soap bubbles that would temporarily leave behind marks and stains.  According to the Crayola Colored Bubbles Class Action Lawsuit this was not the case.  A mother claimed that the bubbles did not wash away and stained her property permanently.  Crayola has denied any wrong doing but has agreed to settle in order to avoid any further court cost.  The lawsuit includes the following Crayola products… the Washable Colored Bubbles Bubble Launcher, the Washable Colored Bubbles Play Pack, the Washable Colored Bubbles three-pack and the Washable Colored Bubbles Wand Set.  These products must have drove mothers around the country up a wall if the allegations in this lawsuit are true!  Imagine buying this product for your kid only to realize it stains your clothing.  A hearing will be held on April 24, 2012 to determine if the settlement terms are fair and adequate.  If the court doe sin fact approve the settlement you MUST call Crayola at 1-866-436-6933 to make a claim between April 24, 2012 and December 31, 2012.

The terms of the settlement are is follows:

(1) Cash Compensation for Purchase Costs: Class Members with proof of purchase or a UPC will receive their choice of: (i) the cash value of the 2011 Washable Colored Bubbles product(s) (plus any shipping, handling and tax if applicable) in the form of a check; or (ii) Crayola vouchers for the value of the 2011 Washable Colored Bubbles product(s) purchased (plus shipping, handling and tax if applicable), plus $5.00 in vouchers. Compensation or vouchers will not be given to more than one person for the same product. Class Members with no proof of purchase may receive the value of the 2011 Washable Colored Bubbles product(s) purchased in the form of Crayola vouchers not to exceed $12.00.

(2) Cash Compensation for Out-of-Pocket Costs to Clean Stains: For out-of-pocket costs for cleaning supplies or services to remediate stains caused by 2011 Washable Colored Bubbles, Crayola will provide the cash value of such costs provided that: (i) the Class Member has a receipt or other reliable documentation for a 2011 Washable Colored Bubble product; (ii) the Class Member attests that the stain resulted from the 2011 Washable Colored Bubble product; and (iii) the Class Member provides a receipt or other reliable documentation showing out-of-pocket cost for the cleaning supplies or services.

(3) Cash Compensation for Property Damage: For out-of-pocket costs for cleaning supplies or services to remediate stains caused by 2011 Washable Colored Bubbles, Crayola will provide the cash value of such costs provided that: (i) the Class Member has a receipt or other reliable documentation for a 2011 Washable Colored Bubble product; (ii) the Class Member attests that the stain resulted from the 2011 Washable Colored Bubble product; and (iii) the Class Member provides a receipt or other reliable documentation showing out-of-pocket cost for the cleaning supplies or services.

Please visit the class action administrators web portal at http://www.crayola.com/2011bubblessettlement/

A class action lawsuit has been settled against Chase over accusations that they violated the Service members Civil Relief Act when they failed to provide protection to active duty members of the military while they were away defending our country.  The service members mortgage loans, home equity loans, and lines of credit were not properly protected according to the Chase SCRA Class Action Lawsuit Settlement while they were on active duty and immediately following active duty.  The lawsuit is in the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

The lawsuit is entitled Rowles v. Chase Home Finance, LLC and consist of tow settlement funds.  Fund I provides a $$20,400,000 while fund II provides a $15,000,000 settlement.  Class members of Fund I will automatically receive a payment and do not have to file a claim form.  Class members of fund II are required to file a claim form online or by mail no later than February 13, 2012.  The Fund I settlement will come in the form of a $100 payment or an estimated 6.3 times the Original Estimated Refund, whichever is greater.  The settlement amount for class member of Fund II has yet to be determined by the courts.  Any questions or concerns about the lawsuit can be directed to the Settlement Administrator by mail at:  Rowles SCRA Settlement, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., P.O. Box 9737, Dublin, OH 43017-5637.

www.ChaseSCRASettlement.org

A class action lawsuit has been filed against E&J Gallo and Constellation Brands requiring a settlement payment of over $2,000,000 for claims that they mislabeled and duped consumers in the United States to buying fake pinot noir.  These wine bottles were sold in stores between the years of 2005 through 2008 and a maximum payment of $21.00 is available under the settlement terms.  The wines were reportedly being sold at $5 to $8 a bottle.  This is unheard of as even the cheapest wine comes in at around $10 a bottle.  This should have raised red flags to the purchasing consumers.  But the Judge in the case blames E&J Gallo and Constellation Brands.

All claim forms must be filed no later than May 24th 2012.  The case was in the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County under Judge Carl J. West and is entitled Zeller v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, et al., and Constellation Brands, Inc., et al..  Class members are defined as anyone in the US who bought the following wines  before December 2, 2011 with a label that identifies the wine as pinot noir from France, Pays d’Herault, or Languedoc-Roussillon:

Farallon Pinot Noir 2006
Red Bicyclette Pinot Noir 2005
Redwood Creek Pinot Noir 2005-2007
Rex Goliath Pinot Noir 2005-2008
Talus Pinot Noir 2005-2007
Turning Leaf Pinot Noir 2006
Woodbridge by Robert Mondavi Pinot Noir 2005-2008

All claim forms must be submitted under oath.  A settlement fairness hearing will be held on April 23, 2012, at 1:30 p.m to determine if the settlement is fair and reasonable.  All objections and exclusion request to the French Pinot Noir Wine Lawsuit Settlement must be filed before March 9, 2012.  The lawyers representing the class member are Kingsley & Kingsley and Caddell & Chapman.  Please check back for more information after the settlement hearing date.

www.frenchpinotsettlement.com

A lawsuit has been filed against Lowe’s claiming that they violated federal law by changing the way their employees enrolled in health insurance.  This change caused thousands of employees to lose their health care coverage without their knowledge.  Many employees went months without having health insurance and not knowing about it.  They were one hospital trip away from going thousands of dollars into debt.  The Lowe’s employees class action lawsuit claims that Lowe’s  violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and includes all employees who had a Lowe’s Group Medical Plan resulting in termination of health coverage in the year 2011.

Under the previous health insurance enrollment system employees were automatically enrolled unless they made a change to their policy.  Then Lowe’s changed the policy that made every employee re-enroll via its computer system.  The employees only learned of the dropped coverage after they or their family members became ill and they had to cough up the bill in full.  The lawsuit states ““Lowe’s failed to give notice to any of its employees who lost coverage due to the modification of the enrollment procedure or to inform them in any way of the loss of coverage.”  Imagine falling down and breaking your leg and being rushed to the emergency room only to find out you don’t have health insurance.  That would make a very bad situation even worse.

The lawsuit is seeking reimbursement of medical expenses that were paid by the employees as a result of not having health insurance.  The lawsuit is also seeking that employees be reinstated of coverage for Class Members.  The lawsuit was filed by Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP, Sapir & Frumkin LLP and the Law Offices of Patrick F. Lee on behalf of class members.  This case will be in the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.  Stay tuned for more details.

The T-Mobile Credit Card Privacy Lawsuit claims that the California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act was violated when T-Mobile gathered customers’ zip codes, addresses, e-mail address, phone numbers and other personal identification information when these customers made credit card transactions.  The case is entitled Edward Pringle v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (case number 12-cv-00132) and is in the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of California, County of Marin.  The lawsuit is gunning for the maximum statutory penalty for class members who had their “personal identification information” gathered as a condition to accepting a credit card payment at a California Mobile retail stores.  It would do T-Mobile good to keep their valued customers information more private in the future.

This class action lawsuit claims that customers were sold a Verizon TV Protection Plan under the terms that any repairs needed to screens larger than 32 inches would not include a $75 service fee.  The problem is when customers did require repairs Verizon refused to conduct the repair unless the $75.00 service fee was paid.  Something isn’t adding up here.  The Verizon 32 Inch TV Protection Plan Lawsuit Complaint claims fraud, legal fraud, equitable fraud and breach of contract.  Imagine paying for a TV protection plan only to be charged for that protection down the road.

“The terms of the TV Protection Plan specifically excluded subscribers with televisions larger than 32 inches from having to pay a $75 service fee. Yet, Verizon refused to have any subscribers with televisions larger than 32 inches, such as the Plaintiff, get service unless the service fee was paid,” via the complaint.

The lawsuit is entitled Maureen Chandra v. Verizon Communications, Inc. and is in the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey.  The class is seeking monetary reimbursements for enrollment in the TV Protection Plan, a refund of service fees charged, attorneys’ fees, court costs, and other relief deemed proper.  The lawsuit will be held before the Honorable Judge Faith S. Hochberg and is case number 2:12-cv-00371.

Wang v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, et al

If between the dates of June 22, 2009 to October 15, 2009 TransUnion issued your personal credit report to a third-party you might be eligible for  a settlement payment up to $100.00 and a free six months of free credit monitoring under the terms of the TransUnion Credit Report Class Action Lawsuit Settlement.  In order to be a class member the report that was issued by TansUnion to the third part must contain one or more Asset-owned delinquent accounts that you disputed but did not contain an “Account In Dispute” or “AID” remark.  If you feel like you’re a part of this lawsuit you must file a claim form on or before March 02, 2012.  If you wish to object or exclude yourself from the settlement you have until March 2, 2012.  More information can be found by phone, mail or at the Settlement Administrator web portal:

Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 2653
Faribault, MN 55021-9653

Phone: (866) 431-8467

www.wangclassactionsettlement.com

The class action lawsuit entitled Discover Payment Protection Plan Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation has been resolved under the terms of a $10,500,000 settlement agreement.  Discover has denied all wrong doing but has agreed to settle in order to avoid any further court cost.  The lawsuit was filed over claims that Discover tricked customer into Discover Payment Protection (formerly known as Discover AccountGuard), Identity Theft Protection (formerly known as Profile Protect), Wallet Protection (formerly known as The Register), and Credit Score Tracker products that came with a hefty fee.  If you or someone you know was tricked into purchasing one of these products between the dates of January 21, 2004 and November 9, 2011 you could be eligible for a payment as a result of this lawsuit.  The settlement amount depends on a variety of factors such as the number of claims that are filed and also the amount of fees paid by class member.

There are four types of claims under the terms of the settlement; the Discover Payment Protection (DPP Claims), the Credit Score Tracker (CST claims) the Identity Theft Protection (ITP claims) and the Wallet Protection (WP claims) depending on the type of product the class member purchased.

All claims must be filed by June 6, 2012.  The settlement fairness hearing is currently scheduled for May 8, 2012 but is subject to change.  All exclusions and objections must be postmarked by March 23, 2012.  The Settlement Agreement, Preliminary Approval Order and the  Exhibits to the Settlement Agreement are all available for download at the class administrators website.  Adobe Reader will be required in order to download and print these documents.

The settlement administrators website can be found at: www.walkersettlement.com