Did you receive a Payday Loan At Check ‘N Go Store In North Carolina after August 31, 2001?  If so you could be in for a pay day under the settlement terms of  the North Carolina Payday Loan Settlement.  A payday loan is defined, for the purposes of this lawsuit, as a transaction means of cash advances, deferred deposit check cashing disbursements, or loans (including installment loans and zero interest loans) or other transactions.  The Superior Court of New Hanover County, in Wilmington, North Carolina will have rule of this case and it is entitled McQuillan v. Check ‘n Go of North Carolina, Inc.

A settlement amount of $14 million dollars is being reported in the Check ’n Go payday loan class action settlement even though the defendants deny they did anything wrong.  The reported settlement funds are being held in escrow pending approval of the settlement.  A settlement fairness hearing was held on Thursday, March 31, 2011 at the New Hanover Superior Court, 316 Princess Street, Wilmington, N.C. 28401. 

If you need to change your address please write to:

McQuillan v. Check ‘N Go of North Carolina Address Change
c/o Gilardi & Co
P.O. Box 808061
Petaluma, CA 94975-8061

More information about the North Carolina Payday Loan Settlement can be found at www.nccgsettlement.

Did you file a insurance claim  for structural losses with Allstate between the dates of September 6, 1996 and December 6, 2010 and was determined to be covered by a Homeowners Insurance Policy issued by Allstate, and received a payout?  If you answered yes to all of these questions you could very well be a class member in the Allstate Homeowners Insurance class action lawsuit entitled Feely and Beeson v. Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. CV-2004-294-3A.  The Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas has jurisdiction over this case.

Verizon Wireless has a public relations night mare on their hands… The Verizon Wireless Third Pary Bill Cramming lawsuit revolves around Verizon Wireless and how they allegedly “cramed” third-party charges into customers’ bills. “Cramming” is an industry term used to describe the practice of allowing unauthorized charges from third-party companies to be added to customers’ phone bills without verification of their authenticity.  Would Verizon stoop this low in order to make a few dollars?… yes according to the lawsuit.  The case is entitled Considine v. Verizon Wireless, 2:11-cv-02461 and was originally filed in Bergen County Superior Court by the lead plaintiff John Considine, of Rutherford, the case was removed to federal court in Newark April 29 based on the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and federal question jurisdiction.  Mr. Considine also reports that when he contacted Verizon Wireless his request to take the charges of services he did not order of his bill were ignored.  Funmobile Games Inc. of Hong Kong (as the operator of hot-hot-news.com) and SendMe Inc. of San Francisco (as the operator of WT411.com) were also named in the Verizon Wireless Bill Cramming Class Action Lawsuit.  The claims made by the plaintiff are in violationof the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq., and the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 et seq., along with common-law unjust enrichment.  David Samberg (who is a  Verizon Wireless big dog) claims that he was not familiar with the Considine case but that Verizon is committed to stamping out fraudulent cramming.  On April 27, in AT&T Mobility, LLC, v. Concepcion , No. 09-893, the Court ruled 5-4 that a California rule that deems class-action waivers in arbitration agreements unenforceable is pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act.

Facebook is facing another lawsuit… so whats new?  The  Facebook “Like” Button Class Action Lawsuit revolves around the “Like” button and claims that FB plantED tracking cookies on the computers of both members and non-members of Facebook… in other words Facebook used the like button to spy on you.  The Facebook class action lawsuit accuses the popular social media site of using its “Like” button on third-party websites in order to collect users’ browsing information.  According to the lawsuit the user did not even have to clcik on thebutton and they did not have to be Facebook members in order for the privacy violation to work.  We have been trying to get the like button on this website for some time but keep getting turned down from FB, maybe its for the best.  

The lead plantiff in the lawsuit is David Cohen, and it is entitled David Cohen v. Facebook (case #BC444482).  He argues that there has been more than one million instances where Facebook has misappropriated a minor’s name or likeness for profit.  When a teenager sees that their Facebook friends ‘Like’ an ad, it piques their curiosity, making them more likely to click the ad or visit the page,” says Los Angeles plaintiff attorney John Torjesen of John C. Torjesen & Associates. “We believe it is a clear case of exploitation of children for the sake of profits.”.  While that may be true in some sense do you really think it is a payable lawsuit?  Facebook denies all wrongdoing and states. “We believe this suit is completely without merit and we will fight it vigorously. The complaint misunderstands the law, it’s intent and the way Facebook works. For example, plaintiffs assert that minors are marketing Facebook through search engines but we do not allow minors to include their profiles in search engines,”.

A settlement has finally been reached in the Vonage class action lawsuit.  If you subscribed for Vonage services in the United States on or before January 3, 2011 you may be entitled to benefits asa class member of this lawsuit.  The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has jurisdiction of this lawsuit and it is entitled In re Vonage Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation,MDL No. 1862, Civil Action No. 3:07-cv-03906.  This case revolves around “Vonage misrepresented the scope of its promotional one month free and money back guarantee offers, improperly collected certain disconnection, cancellation or termination fees, and continued to charge subscription fees despite requests for cancellation, all in alleged violation of pertinent law” according to the class notice.  A $4.75 million dollar settlement fund is being reported in this case. 

Important dates in the Vonage Class Action Lawsuit Settlement are as follows:

July 11, 2011 is the deadline to submit a claim form online or by mail.  If by mail the claim msut be postmarked by that date.

April 19, 2011 is the deadline to exclude yourself from the claim.

March 1, 2011 was the deadline to ask to speak at the fairness hearing.

The proposed Settlement offers eligible Class Members reimbursements for certain payments made by Vonage subscribers.

More information can be obtained at www.settlementvonage.com

The Target Credit Card Zip Code Class Action Lawsuit revovles around claims that Target stores in the state of Califronia violated the law when illegally requested customers’ zip codes when processing credit card transactions.  The lawsuit argues that this shady practice allegedly violates California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, Cal. Civ. Code § 1747 which is intended to promote privacy and prevent the misuse of consumers’ personal data.  The proposed class action lawsuit is seeking civil penalties for each class member in the amount of up to $1,000 for each violation of Song-Beverly and could include anyone who was asked for their zip code when shopping at Target with a credit card.  This lawsuit is entitled Green v. Target Corp., No. 1-11CV199677, and was filed in the Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara County on Apr. 26, 2011. 

In a statement made by Target they have a policy of  requesting and recording customers’ zip codes when credit cards are used, the complaint says.  The company allegedly requires customers to provide this information as a condition of accepting credit cards for payment.  This case comes on the heals of Supreme Court decision in the case Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. which deemed that zip codes are considered personally identifying information.  More than 150 filed against various retailers in California since the Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc and there are sure to be more in the future.

Chase Bank is in hot water over low interest rate check loans they issued.  A federal judge has reportedly certified a 2009 class action lawsuit against Chase Bank that revolves around promises by Chase bank that provided consumers permanent low interest rates on “check loans” but later forced the customers to increase the rate of the loans.  Apparently Chase bank has a different definition of the word ” permanent” than the Webster dictionary.  U.S. District Court Judge Maxine M. Chesney certified the class and denied a motion by Chase to strike the complaint. 

The plaintiffs in the case claim that they each had a Chase credit card that carried a minimum monthly payment of 2% of the outstanding balance, and that the card included a “credit card check” option which provided a loan with a fixed annual percentage rate (APR) until the balance is paid in full.  But here is the problem… in In November 2008, Chase advised some of the plaintiffs that it was raising the minimum monthly payment from 2% to 5%.  The lawsuit charges Chase with breaching their Credit Card Card-members agreement. 

The lawsuit states “the court’s finding defines the class as all persons who entered into a loan agreement with Chase, whereby Chase promised a fixed APR until the loan balance was paid in full and (I) whose minimum monthly payment was increased by Chase to 5% of the outstanding balance or (ii) who were notified by Chase of a minimum payment increase and subsequently closed their account or agreed to an alternative change in terms”.

The Fila Body Toning System lawsuit revolves around claims that the BTS apparel marketed and sold by Fila did not live up to the promises as advertised.  The case is under the jurisdiction of the United States District Court Southern District of California. Fila is a popular sporting apparel company that advertise that the BTS workout gear can sculpt and tone the body and provide other health benefits that normal sport apparel clothing could not.  The promises made by Fila were “50% increase in muscle workout” and “41% more support” than normal fitness clothing.  The problems with these promises is that there is no scientific proof to back these claims up.  Fila’s advertisement of the product is false, misleading, and reasonably likely to trick the public according to the lawsuit.  Customers claim they would of never purchased the high end apparel if the truth was known about the true nature of the product.  Fila was also able to charge a premium price for the Fila Body Toning apparel due to the claims it made.  The Fila Body Toning System class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of anyone who purchased Fila toning apparel products in the USA. It is seeking class certification, damages, restitution and an order requiring Fila to issue a corrective advertising campaign.  The line was first launched in the United States in October of 2010.  A complete copy of the Fila Body Toning System Class Action Lawsuit can be found here.

A $30 million settlement ended the Duke Energy Retirement Plan class action lawsuit which was under the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in Greenville.  The lawsuit revolved around claims that Duke Energy administered and calculated benefits under its retirement cash balance which was in violation of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  The May 16, 2011 fairness hearing was held and the settlement was agreed upon. 

The Court approved and confirmed that the Settlement Agreement was fair and reasonable.  The lawsuit class included anyone who was “Current or former vested Duke employees who were participants in the company’s cash balance plan between Jan. 1, 1997, and Dec. 31, 1998, excluding participants who had retired on or before Dec. 31, 1996″ or “Former employees of Duke who were participants in Duke’s cash balance plan between Jan. 1, 1997, and Dec. 31, 2002, and retired and took lump sum benefits on or before Aug. 17, 2006, before age 65.” according to the lawsuit.  The Court considered two objections to the settlement but both were overruled.  A copy of the Duke Energy Cash Balance Pension Class Action Lawsuit can be read here.