In re Live Concert Antirust, MDL 1745 – This pending class action alleges that Clear Channel and its affiliates monopolized and attempted to monopolize the markets for live concerts and concert tickets by, inter alia, leveraging their position in radio markets to coerce performers to use their concert promotion services.
Cases Tagged ‘class action’
Myriad Genetics Class Action Lawsuit
Chimicles & Tikellis is investigating a potential class action lawsuit on behalf of Medicare patients that have received a BRAC 1 genetic test from Myriad Genetics. There have been reports that Myriad is categorizing the test as “screening” instead of “diagnostic”, resulting in Medicare denying coverage and patients paying for the test out of pocket. Patients with the BRAC 1 gene have a predisposition to developing breast cancer. The BRAC 1 genetic test is an influential test in determining a patient’s treatment. Myriad Genetics is the sole processor of BRAC 1 genetic tests. C&T is investigating reports that Myriad Genetics has improperly denied Medicare coverage, requiring patients to pay out of pocket and is seeking to recover on behalf of those patients.
If you have received a BRAC 1 genetic test from Myriad Genetics and paid out of pocket please contact the attorneys below:
Gym Membership Cancelations Class Action Lawsuit
Chimicles & Tikellis is investigating reports that certain gyms have policies and practices that make it difficult for consumers to cancel their gym membership. C&T is also investigating reports that some gyms continue to charge former members after they have canceled their membership. If you have experienced this practice, please contact the attorneys below.
Sloan Optima Flushometer Class Action Lawsuit
Chimicles & Tikellis is investigating a potential class action lawsuit on behalf of consumers who purchased Sloan Optima Flushometer. C&T is investigating whether these devices suffer from a design defect that causes premature failure.
If you have purchased a Sloan Optima Flushometer and experienced this problem, please contact the attorneys below.
Mac OS X Lion – Duplicate Charges through PayPal / iTunes Class Action Lawsuit
C&T is investigating a potential class action lawsuit against Apple for duplicate charges incurred by consumers purchasing and downloading Mac OS X Lion. Some consumers may experience multiple charges on their account for the purchase of Mac OS X Lion when paying via the electronic fund transfer site PayPal. It is believed that only those individuals with a PayPal account linked to an iTunes/App Store account would likely be affected. Unfortunately, these incorrect duplicate charges may also result in unwarranted overdraft fees to some consumers.
If you have purchased Mac OS X Lion using a PayPal account linked to an iTunes/App Store account and incurred duplicate charges and/or unwarranted overdraft fees from your financial institution, then please contact the following attorneys:
ConAgra Oil – “100% Natural” Class Action Lawsuit
Chimicles & Tikellis is investigating a potential class action lawsuit on behalf of consumers that purchased ConAgra canola oil, corn oil, vegetable oil, and/or “Best Blend” that was labeled as being “100% Natural.” C&T is investigating reports that these oils are actually made from genetically engineered or genetically modified plants and grains. This is a laboratory process that involves artificially inserting genes into the DNA of food crops or animals. C&T is investigating whether ConAgra’s claim that these oils are “100% Natural” is, therefore, false.
If you have purchased ConAgra canola oil, corn oil, vegetable oil, and/or “Best Blend” that was labeled as being “100% Natural” please contact the attorneys below.
STERIS Corporation
On March 3, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted preliminary approval to a proposed settlement reached in a class action lawsuit filed by Chimicles & Tikellis LLP (“C&T”) against STERIS Corporation (“STERIS”). The lawsuit is related to STERIS’ marketing and sale of the STERIS SYSTEM 1® Sterile Processor (the “SS1 Device”), a tabletop liquid chemical system that provides rapid, low-temperature processing of surgical instruments such as endoscopes and bronchoscopes. On June 6, 2011, the Court granted final approval to the settlement.
Sterilization systems like the SS1 Device must be cleared by the FDA before they can be sold to healthcare providers. The FDA cleared the SS1 in 1988. The lawsuit filed by C&T alleges that STERIS made several material changes to the SS1 Device after 1988 without obtaining the necessary clearance from the FDA, and that as a result, the FDA informed healthcare providers that use of the SS1 Device “should be discontinued as soon as practicable,” but no later than August 2, 2011. STERIS subsequently entered into a consent decree with the FDA to implement a transition plan whereby healthcare providers could return their SS1 Devices to STERIS in exchange for a rebate (the “Rebate Program”). There are no allegations in this case that the SS1 Devices create a safety hazard, nor that anyone has been harmed as a result of using the SS1 Devices.
The proposed settlement of the class action lawsuit is on behalf of all domestic healthcare providers that own or owned a SS1 Device that was (a) purchased before January 1, 2009, and (b) in use on December 1, 2009. SS1 Devices purchased after January 1, 2009 are not part of this proposed settlement because they are already eligible for a full refund from STERIS under the Rebate Program. In December 2009, STERIS prepared a list of SS1 Devices then in use — the “Transition List.” All eligible healthcare providers on the Transition List will be sent notice of the settlement. The settlement applies to approximately 20,000 SS1 Devices owned by approximately 6,600 customers. Based on the number of Eligible SS1 Devices and settlement options made available to each, C&T estimates that the settlement provides approximately $20 million of benefits to the class.
The benefits that class members can elect to receive differs depending on whether they are members of Sub-Class A, Sub-Class B, or Sub-Class C:
| Sub-Class | Description | Settlement Consideration |
| A | Class Members that (a) purchased or elect to purchase SYSTEM 1E™ (“SS1E”) Device from STERIS on or before December 31, 2012, and (b) either (i) still have the Eligible SS1 Device(s) or (ii) returned the Eligible SS1 Device(s) to STERIS in the Rebate Program. The SS1E is STERIS’ next generation liquid chemical sterilant processing system. | Will receive SS1E Credits in the amount of $1,000.00 per Eligible SS1 Device, which can be applied towards the purchase of any SS1E Accessories, Parts Or Consumables; SS1E credits can be combined, and must be claimed by December 31, 2012. |
| B | Class Members that (a) do not elect to purchase an SS1E Device and (b) either (i) still have the Eligible SS1 Device(s) or (ii) returned the Eligible SS1 Device(s) to STERIS in the Rebate Program. | Will, for each Eligible SS1 Device, have the option to receive either (a) $500 in STERIS Product Credits, or (b) $300.00 in cash. STERIS Product Credits may be redeemed for any STERIS product(s) other than an SS1E Device, service, or service contracts. STERIS Product Credits can be combined and must be claimed by December 31, 2012. |
| C | Class Members that, for any reason other than because the Eligible SS1 Device was returned to STERIS in the Rebate Program, no longer have the Eligible SS1 Device. | Will be entitled to receive a $200.00 cash payment from STERIS for each Eligible SS1 Device. |
In order to receive this settlement consideration, the Court must grant final approval of this settlement and all Class Members (except for those in Sub-Class C) will be required to return their Eligible SS1 Units to STERIS. Class Members will also be required to return to STERIS all open or used SS1 quick connects, parts, trays, containers, filters, sterility assurance products, S20 sterilant, and other parts, accessories, or consumables for their SS1 Devices that are in the Class Member’s possession. If Class Members have already disposed of these open or used items, they will be given the option to sign a certification confirming that these items have been disposed of and are no longer useable.
Class members will be mailed a claim form within ten days after the Court grants final approval to the settlement. Class members have until December 31, 2012 to return their claim form to the address listed on the claim form.
For additional information about the settlement, you may contact the attorneys below, or visit the settlement website, which will be activated shortly: http://www.sterilizersettlement.com.
Volvo XC90 Transmission Failure – Class Action Settlement
In August 2009, Chimicles & Tikellis filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Volvo Cars of North America, LLC and Volvo Car Corporation (together, “Volvo”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey related to the alleged transmission defect in the model years 2003-2005 XC90 Turbo 6-cylinder (T6) SUV. In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs alleged that these vehicles are predisposed to transmission slippage, premature clutch wear, overheating, and other problems that ultimately result in serious and expensive damage to the vehicles’ transmission. This case is a class action suit seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers who are the current and former owners and/or lessees of Volvo MY 2003-2005 XC90 T6 vehicles equipped with a General Motors transmission.
On July 21, 2010, Judge Cavanaugh of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an opinion denying, in part, Volvo’s motion to dismiss our case. Afterwards, the parties reached a tentative settlement and Plaintiffs filed a motion in support of preliminary settlement approval with the Court on April 3, 2012. On June 25, 2012, the Honorable Claire C. Cecchi of the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, entered an Order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement. The Court held that, upon preliminary examination, the settlement appears fair, reasonable, and adequate for all Class Members, and that the Class should receive notice of the settlement and be provided the opportunity to include or exclude themselves from or object to the settlement. The final approval hearing was held on October 4, 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The next step will be for the Court to issue an opinion either accepting or rejecting the proposed settlement.
The proposed settlement class includes people in the United States who are current and former owners and lessees of model years 2003-2005 Volvo XC90 T6 Vehicles. This means that even if you no longer own or lease a Volvo XC90 T6 but paid for transmission rebuild(s) and/or replacement(s) during the period of time you did own or lease it, you may qualify for benefits under this settlement.
You must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than November 7, 2012 to be eligible for any compensation under the settlement. Downloadable versions of the Claim Form and Notice are available below:
To view the motion for the final approval of the settlement click here.
To view the Plaintiffs’ fee petition click here.
If you have experienced transmission problems with your 2003-2005 Volvo XC90 T6 vehicle and have questions about the settlement then please contact the following attorneys:
Volvo Sunroof Leaks – S40, S60, S80, V50, V70, and XC90 Vehicles
In August 2010, Chimicles & Tikellis filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of current and former owners and lessees of the following Volvo vehicle models: S40, S60, S80, V50, V70, XC90 vehicles (the “Class Vehicles”). The complaint alleges that the sunroofs in the Class Vehicles suffer from a design defect that inevitably leads to extensive damage by allowing an ingress of water into the Class Vehicles. This water, which is intended to be directed to the exterior of the vehicle, instead ends up within the passenger compartment of the Class Vehicles. The complaint alleges that when this occurs, it may pose a safety risk to the operator of the vehicle since the ingress of water can damage important electrical items and/or sensors.
On March 26, 2013, the Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Volvo’s motions for summary judgment and granted Plaintiffs’ motion for certification of California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida, Hawaii and Maryland state classes. A copy of the opinion is available here.
If you are a current or former lessee of one of the Class Vehicles and have experienced the sunroof defect described above, please submit your info via the “Email Us…” button, below.
Honda Hybrid Litigation
On March 16, 2012, San Diego Superior Court Judge Timothy B. Taylor granted final approval to a comprehensive settlement that resolves false advertising claims initially brought in a California federal court in 2007 as well as consumer claims first filed by Chimicles & Tikellis in August 2010 alleging that a July 2010 Honda software update to the Integrated Motor Assist (“IMA”) battery system negatively impacted the fuel economy and performance of the MY 2006-2008 Honda Civic Hybrids. The false advertising claims, brought under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Pro. Code § 17200, et seq., False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Bus. & Pro. Code § 17500, et seq., the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civil Code § 1750, et seq., and for common law Unjust Enrichment, allege that Honda advertised and marketed the Civic Hybrid in a disingenuous way, with inaccurate representations of fuel economy that the car simply did not achieve under normal driving conditions.
All persons who purchased or leased a Honda Civic Hybrid model year 2003 through 2009 in the United States are included in the Settlement Class. The settlement resolves all of the claims in all of the above-described lawsuits, and supersedes a prior proposed settlement for which notice was mailed in October 2009. The settlement, valued by the court at approximately $170 million, entitles all class members to cash, cash equivalent, and additional non-cash benefits that are summarized in the tables below (for a full description of the settlement benefits, please visit www.hchsettlement.com).
|
Cash and Cash Equivalent Settlement Benefits |
||
|
Eligible Class Members |
Cash |
Rebate Certificates (redeemable on the purchase of any new Honda or Acura vehicle) |
| MY 2003 – 2009 Settlement Class Members who are dissatisfied with the fuel economy of their HCH |
$100 |
$500 (fully transferable) –OR– $1000 (non-transferable) |
| *MY 2006 – 2008 Settlement Class Members who received the Software Update and remain dissatisfied with the HCH |
Additional $100 |
Additional $500 fully transferable rebate certificate |
* MY 2006-2008 Settlement Class Members electing ADR Dispute Resolution (described below) will not receive these additional benefits
|
Additional Settlement Benefits |
|
|
MY 2003 – 2008 |
IMA Warranty Extension: These Settlement Class Members will receive a 12 Month/12,000 mile extension on the original IMA Battery Warranty, plus reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses on IMA repairs or replacements made during what would have been the extended warranty period. |
|
MY 2003 – 2009 |
Fuel Economy Video: All Settlement Class Members will be entitled to a video prepared and produced by Honda describing ways to maximize and optimize vehicle fuel economy. |
|
MY 2006 – 2008 |
ADR Dispute Resolution: In lieu of the Additional Cash and Rebate Certificates available for MY 2006-2008 Settlement Class Members, these Settlement Class Members may instead elect to participate in a binding dispute resolution program (“ADR”) administered by Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (“JAMS”). Eligible Settlement Class Members choosing this option will be required to pay $250 towards JAMS’ mediation fees, but all other fees due to JAMS will be paid by Honda. There is no limit to the amount of damages that a MY 2006-2008 Settlement Class Member may seek in the ADR process. |
UPDATE: The Effective Date of the Settlement was delayed five months by a single appeal filed on behalf of several class members. That appeal was voluntarily withdrawn on October 19, 2012, which became the Effective Date of the Settlement. As a result, the deadline for submitting claim forms and supporting materials is April 19, 2013. Claim forms are available on the settlement website at www.hchsettlement.com. It should be noted that if any class member entered into a transaction or replaced an IMA battery while the appeal was pending and the Effective Date was delayed (i.e., between May 15 and October 19, 2012), you should still submit a proof of claim to the Claims Administrator (with a copy to Class Counsel) to seek your settlement benefits.
Claim Forms: Settlement Class Members may complete and submit their claim Forms to the Settlement Administrator. Claim Forms and other information is available on the settlement website at www.hchsettlement.com. Claim Forms may be submitted up through April 19, 2013.
