A class action lawsuit has been filed against the popular German auto company Mercedes-Benz claiming certain autos manufactured by Mercedes were prone to water leakage that could damage the interior and electronics resulting in sudden engine failure while driving the auto.  The type of Benz in question is the 2003-2009 Mercedes-Benz E-Class W-211.  If you bought or leased this vehicle in the United States between 2003 and 2009 you could be a class member of this lawsuit.  The class members of the Mercedes-Benz E-Class W-211 Water Defect Lawsuit go on to claim that Mercedes-Benz knew about this water leak and did nothing to stop it and actually attempted to cover it up. 

The lawsuit is entitled Patrick G. Lum, et al. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Case No. 11-cv-9751) and is in the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Western Division.  The class members are seeking damages for repairs made to the named vehicles.  The lawsuit states the E class W-211’s water management system is “uniformly and inherently defective in materials, design and/or workmanship because they become clogged with leaves, twigs, debris and other objects that enter the water management system.”  This case is not looking good for Mercedes-Benz.  Maybe your next car should be a Lexus.

If you’re a resident of Cali and purchased Complete MoisturePlus contact solution anytime between June 8, 2003 to the present time (today is 11-29-11) you might be a member of the  Complete MoisturePlus Contact Solution Class Action Lawsuit.  The lawsuit revolves around claims of consumer fraud involving the safety of this contact solution.  The lawsuit is entitled Lazar vs. Advanced Medical Optics and is in the jurisdiction of the Orange County Superior Court.

Class members claim that Advanced Medical Optics sold contact solution that increased the risk of developing a parasitic eye infection called Acanthamoeba keratitis.  The problem is the solution was sold as a contact solution that would effectively “disinfect” contact lenses.  AMO denies all wrong doing but has agreed to a settlement agreement in order to avoid any further court cost.  The settlement agreement will provide 100% cash refunds or a “good as cash coupon” to eligible class members who file timely claim forms.  All claim forms MUST be turned in by February 16, 2012. 

If you would like to object to the AMO Settlement please do so by  March 8, 2012.  You will be required to mail the objection notice to: (1) Co-Counsel for the Class: Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP, Attn: James A. Quadra, 1 Lombard Street, Second Floor, San Francisco, California, 94111, and The Senators (Ret.) Firm, Attn: Ronald T. Labriola, 4695 MacArthur Court, Suite 370, Newport Beach, California, 92660; and (2) Counsel for Defendant: Venable LLP, Attn: Ben Whitwell, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California, 90067.

A fairness hearing will be held on 03-23-12 at 9am sharp to determine if the settlement fair and reasonable.  The hearing will take place at 751 West Santa Ana Boulevard, Santa Ana, California 92701.  For more information about the case to include the claim form please visit the class admin website.

www.amosettlement.com

The Black Farmer class action lawsuit revolves around claims by African American farmers that the USDA discriminated based on race which resulted in the farmers being wrongly denied farm loans, did not receive appropriate loan service from the USDA, and other benefits, or giving them loans with unfair terms.  The lawsuit claims that this “discrimination” took place between the years of 1981 to 1996.  The lawsuit is entitled Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation Settlement (case number, 08-mc-0511) and is in the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  You must file a claim to be part of any type of settlement associated with the BlackFarmerCase.  Claim forms will be accepted between November 14, 2011 and end on May 11, 2012.  The settlement type depends on which “track” the class member falls into.   The tracks are shown below:

Track A – Establishes an expedited claims process that will provide people who file successful claims with a cash payment of up to $50,000, plus a payment to be applied to debt owed (if any) to USDA, plus a tax payment worth 25% of that person’s cash and loan awards.

Track B – Establishes a more rigorous claims process that will allow people who file successful claims an opportunity to receive actual damages up to $250,000

Congress has approved a $1.25 Billion settlement fund.  The settlement will include cash payments and reductions or forgiveness of USDA loans for certain Class Members who qualify.  You MUST file a claim to be eligible for a settlement.  Failure to file a valid claim form before May 11, 2012 will result in a rejected claim form. 

“Lead Class Counsel”:
Andrew H. Marks, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20004
Telephone: 202-624-2500
Fax: 202-628-5116  Henry Sanders, Esq.

CHESTNUT, SANDERS, SANDERS,
PETTAWAY & CAMPBELL, LLC
One Union Street
Selma, AL 36701
Telephone: 334-875-9264
Fax: 334-875-9853  Gregorio A. Francis, Esq.

MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: 407-420-1414 

www.blackfarmercase.com

Did ACT Total Care Mouthwash really fight plaque build up?  Class members of the ACT Total Care Mouthwash False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit say no.  The case is entitled Toby Gaerin v. Chattem, Inc., (Case number. 11-cv-2735) and is in the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California.

The only active ingredient in ACT Total Care mouthwash is sodium fluoride and there is no evidence to show this ingredient fights plaque build up.  Not only this but the lawsuit claims other deceptive marketing campaigns and even the ACT product name led customers to believe this was a premium mouth wash with anti-plaque fighting benefits.  As a result Chattem was able to charge customers nearly 25% more for ACT Total Care.  Class members in the ACT Total Care Mouthwash Lawsuit include any California residents who purchased ACT Total Care Anticavity Mouthwash marketed as having antiplaque benefits.  A copy of the lawsuit can be read here.

These “all natural” class action lawsuits are piling up one after another.  King Arthur Flour is the latest company to fall victim to a lawsuit claiming that they labeled their flour as “All Natural” but in all reality it actually contained synthetic ingredients.  Class members of the King Arthur Flour Class Action Lawsuit claim they would have never paid a premium price for the King Arthur Flour had the truth been known that it was not All Natural according to the lawsuit.  The customer would have opted for a less expensive brand. 

Some of the synthetic ingredients listed in the lawsuit that were on the King Arthur labels include ascorbic acid, disodium phosphate, potassium carbonate and sodium acid pyrophosphate.  The lawsuit is claiming false advertisement and violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The lawsuit is entitled Larsen v. King Arthur Flour Co., Inc., and is case number 11-cv-5495.  The lawsuit is in the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.

Roto-Rooter is the focus of a class action lawsuit claiming RR charged clients unnecessary  repair fees.  The class members state that Roto-Rooter lied and made false statements to homeowners about the severity of their plumbing problem, in one case they charged a customer a repair bill of $3,600 for a repair that RR employees caused!  The lawsuit is entitled Dawn Mills, et al. v. Roto-Rooter Services Company and is in the jurisdiction of the .S. District Court, State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin.

The lawsuit is supported by a Minneapolis Star Tribune investigation that helped launched this class action lawsuit.  The Tribune uncovered numerous homeowners who were told by Roto-Rooter they needed to repair or replace their sewer lines.  When the same homeowners received a second opinion by another plumbing company they were told the Roto-Rooter price quote “was grossly exaggerated.” 

Class members of the Roto-Rooter Repair Scam Lawsuit include all persons or entities located within Minnesota who, since May 17, 2005, purchased a ticketed camera job, a mainline excavation service, or both, from Roto-Rooter.  A copy of the lawsuit can be found here.

A class action lawsuit was filed against LG Electronics USA, Inc claiming certain refrigerators sold were defective and did not function as they should.  The defect was associated with the light bulb inside LG Model and Kenmore Model refrigerators.  According to the lawsuit the light bulb remained on when the refrigerator door was closed.  You wouldn’t think a little thing like a refrigerator light could start a class action lawsuit, but it has.  Class members of the LG Refrigerators Defect Class Action Lawsuit include anyone who purchased any of the following French door refrigerators:

 LG Models Include:

 Kenmore Models Include:

The lawsuit is entitled Connie McLennan, et al. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc. and is in the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  LG has agreed to an extension of the manufacturer’s limited warranty or complete reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses paid by Class Members.  You must file a claim before 11/07/2012 to be eligible for any type of settlement.  If you wish to object or exclude yourself from the settlement please do so by 01/05/12.  For a full copy of the lawsuit notice or the claim form call 888-773-8394 or visit the class administrators website.

www.MclennanSettlement.com

Union Bank has agreed to a $35,000,000 settlement rather than spend further money in court.  The lawsuit is entitled Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, case number 09-cv-02036 and is in the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami.  The lawsuit revolved around claims that Union Bank juked the system so that customers would have to pay overdraft fees.  The lawsuit claims Union Bank did this by “resequencing” checks so that checks for higher amounts were cleared first.  This caused checks for smaller amounts presented on the same day to bounce again, which resulted in the customer paying more fees!  Under normal banking transactions (such as checks) are processed by chronological order. 

An estimated 350,000 banking customer between the dates of January 2005 to August 2010 were charged overdraft fees as a results of this juked system.  This is not the first bank to have a similar lawsuit filed against them.  Bank Of America recently settled for $410,000,000 in a very similar case. 

Attorneys in the Union Bank Overdraft Fee lawsuit included Bruce Rogow of Bruce S. Rogow, Barry Himmelstein of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Edward Webb of Webb Law Group, and Arlene Stevens of Trief & Olk for the plaintiffs.  Union Bank was represented by Alan Greeg of Richman Greer Weil Brumbaugh Mirabito & Christensen.