After coming off a pretty good week in the stock market JP Morgan Chase is in hot water over claims that they engaged in forgery to gain an advantage in numerous bankruptcy cases dating back to 2009.  The case is entitled Ernest Michael Bakenie v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, and is in the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court, Central District of California.  The lawsuit claimed that Chase actually Photoshop documents to create the illusion that they had rights to money due under mortgage loans which in turned allowed Chase to obtain “relief from stay” motions in bankruptcy court.  The  Occupy Wall Street protesters must be pulling their hair out over this one!

The Chase Bankruptcy Lawsuit states:  “Chase is engaged in the business practice of deceiving bankruptcy judges, Chapter 7 trustees, Chapter 11 trustees, Chapter 13 trustees, the Office of the United States Trustee, creditors, creditor attorneys, debtors in possession, debtors and debtors attorneys as to Chase’s status as a secured creditor in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases filed nationwide.”  The lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit is Ernest Michael Bakenie.  Bakenie claims that “Rather than incur the cost of ‘proving up’ its own standing or the standing of its principal Mortgage Backed Security Trust, Chase systemically misrepresents Chase or a designated MBST to be a creditor in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases by utilizing manufactured documents,”.  Mr. Bakenie will be represented by Joseph Arthur Roberts of Newport Beach.

Chase is just over a different lawsuit which resulted in the firm paying out $153,000,000 in relation to accusations that JPMorgan was negligent in providing details to investors about a mortgage transaction. Chase denied all wrong doing in that case and is expected to do the same in the JP Morgan Chase Bankruptcy Lawsuit.  2012 is not of to a good start for Chase.  JP Morgan Chase & Co. Common Stock (JPM) gained 1.16% today and closed at 37.36.

The Symantec Anti-Virus Software Scam Lawsuit claims that customers were scammed into buying Symantec scareware products that included the PC Tools Registry Mechanic, PC Tools Performance Toolkit, and the Norton Utilities.  The lawsuit states that “scare tactics” were used to coax consumers into buying these products.  The hook came in the form of a free trail scan that mislead the user about the health of their computers… “invariably reports that harmful errors, privacy risks and other problems exist on the PC, regardless of the real condition of their computer.” states the lawsuit.  “Instead, Symantec intentionally designed its Scareware to invariably report, in an extremely ominous manner, that harmful errors, privacy risks, and other computer problems exist on the user’s PC, regardless of the real condition of the consumer’s computer. Furthermore, the scareware does not, and cannot, provide the benefits promised by Symantec. Accordingly, consumers duped into purchasing software that does not function as advertised, and in fact, has very little (if any) utility.”  Customers paid $30.00 or more for a software that was not actually needed.   A computer forensic company was hired by one customer.  The company found that Symantec’s scan always produced those flawed results.

Were not surprise to see this type of lawsuit arise and will not be surprise if more anti-virus software scam lawsuits follow.  The case is entitled James Gross v. Symantec Corporation and is in the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  A copy of the lawsuit can be found below.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bally Fitness in the U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois, Eastern Division.  The lawsuit claims that Bally did not live up to their lifetime member gym privileges.  The lawsuit claims that Bally’s sold their members memberships to LA Fitness which caused members to drive out-of-the-way to work out.

The Bally Gym Total Fitness Lifetime Membership Lawsuit explains: “For other potential plaintiffs throughout the U.S., there are no LA Fitness facilities nearby at which they can workout. For others, Bally did not assign their contract to LA Fitness, but did sell all of the Ballys in their geographic area to LA Fitness,”

The lead Plaintiff in the case lives in Chicago and was told by Bally that in order to work out he must go to a St. Louis, Missouri, Bally club!  Furthermore even if there is a LA Fitness club close by LA Fitness will not allow access to the club by former Bally members unless they buy a new membership.

The case is entitled Juan Dorado, et al. v. Bally Total Fitness Holdings Corp. and LA Fitness International, and is case number 12-cv-137.  A copy of the lawsuit can be found here.

JUAN DORADO,  CASE: 12cv137

MICHAEL MARKZON,
PLAINTIFFS, ) JUDGE
v. ) MAG. JUDGE
BALLY TOTAL FITNESS HOLDING CORP.,
L.A. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC (“LAF”),
DEFENDANTS.

Another lawsuit has been filed claiming false and misleading advertising related to a 100% pure and natural product.  This time Tropicana is up on deck facing a class action lawsuit claiming their OJ is not 100% pure and natural as they claim.  The class members claim that the Tropicana orange juice is “heavily processed and flavored”… “It is not natural orange juice. It is instead a product that is scientifically engineered in laboratories, not nature, which explains its shelf-life of more than two months.” states the Tropicana 100% Orange Juice False Advertising Lawsuit Complaint.  The case is entitled Angelena Lewis v. Tropicana Products, Inc. and is in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California.

Class members of the lawsuit include all US residents who    purchased Tropicana 100% pure and natural orange juice.  The  lawsuit also states that the customer would have never paid a premium price for the OJ in question if the truth as known about its contents.  This is case number 12-cv-00049-JAM-EFB.  A full copy of the lawsuit can be found here.

A settlement has been reached in Hamm v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina.  BCBSNC  has agreed to a $1.9 million settlement amount rather than pay any more court cost.  It should be noted that Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina denies all wrong doing in the case and has only agreed to settlement terms in order to avoid more money being paid to their lawyers.  Class members of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina Class Action Settlement include: (a) who were a member of a Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina (“BCBSNC”) preferred provider organization (“PPO”) plan – Blue Advantage or Blue Options – any time from November 1, 2002 through December 31, 2008; and (b) the plan was not covered by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”); and (c) during any benefit period, you reached your benefit period maximum or lifetime maximum under the terms of your PPO contract with BCBSNC; and (d) you were charged by an in-network provider more than the allowed amount for covered services or supplied after reaching your benefit period or lifetime maximum.  “www.bcbsncsettlement.com“.

If you wish to exclude yourself from any type of settlement associated with this class action lawsuit please make an Exclusion Request by January 18, 2012.  A settlement fairness hearing will be held on 02-08-12 in the North Carolina Business Court, 225 Hillsborough Street, Suite 303, Raleigh, North Carolina at Noon.  All exclusion request must be mailed to:

Hamm v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina Exclusion
c/o Strategic Claims Services
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3
Media, PA 19063

If you wish to receive a payment, you do not need to do anything to remain a Class Member.  The class notice can be read here.

www.bcbsncsettlement.com

If you or someone you know used the LegalZoom to purchase a legal document or legal document assistant service between the dates of September 15, 2005 through June 16, 2011 you are considered a class member of Webster v. LegalZoom.com, Inc. aka LegalZoom Class Action Lawsuit Settlement.  This lawsuit revolves around claims that LegalZoom misrepresented, mislead and over-promised what LegalZoom will deliver to its customers, including the unauthorized practice of law.  LegalZoom denies are allegations of wrong doing but has agreed to settle in order to avoid any further court cost.  The lawsuit also claims that LegalZoom Violated the California Legal Document Assistant Act, California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and other state laws.  The case is in the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of California for The County of Los Angeles and is case number BC438637.

Under the settlement terms a class member may be eligible to receive 60 days of free enrollment in LegalZoom’s Legal Advantage Plus or Business Advantage Pro program or a refund of up to $100.  In order to be eligible for any type of settlement class members must file a valid claim form online by May 15, 2012.  For more details on the settlement terms please see the FAQ portion of the settlement administrators website.   If you would like to exclude yourself from the LegalZoom class action settlement you must do so by March 1, 2012.  A settlement fairness hearing will be held at Courtroom 307, Central Civil West Courthouse, Los Angeles County Superior Court, 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005 before the he Honorable William F. Highberger on April 5, 2012 at 1:30pm.

Please note that the claim form can also be filed by mail as well.  The due date by mail remains May 15, 2012.  Please mail the claim form to:

Webster v. LegalZoom Settlement Administrator
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 9764
Dublin, OH 43017-5663

More information to include the claim form can be found at www.ldalitigation.com or toll free 1 (888) 928-8088 or  by e-mail at LDALitigation@arnslaw.com, or by writing to Class Counsel at The Arns Law Firm, 515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, Attn: LDA Litigation Questions.

www.ldalitigation.com