≡ Menu

If you purchased a Motorola CLIQ XT mobile phone prior to February 2, 2011, you may be part of a class action settlement and entitled to receive a benefit under the Motorola CLIQ XT Mobile Phone Class Action Settlement.

Motorola Mobility, LLC (“Motorola” or “Defendant”) has reportedly agreed to a settlement of a telcom class action lawsuit filed against Motorola in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (styled as Haught v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-02515) alleging, among other things, that Motorola told consumers that it would upgrade CLIQ XT mobile device operating system, but then failed to update the CLIQ XT operating system, according to the Motorola CLIQ XT Mobile Phone class action settlement notice.

The Motorola CLIQ XT Phone settlement class reportedly includes, unless otherwise excluded, all individuals and entities in the United States who purchased a Motorola CLIQ XT prior to February 2, 2011.

The Motorola CLIQ XT phone settlement reportedly provides that Motorola will provide a redemption code valued at twenty-five dollars $25 for the Motorola Online Store www.store.motorola.com to each Settlement Class Member who files an Approved Claim Form.  The settlement also calls for prospective relief in the form of certain disclaimers.

For more information about the CLIQ XT Phone settlement, including info about how to obtain and file a settlement claim form, write the settlement Administrator at CliqXT Settlement, PO Box 3058, Portland, OR 97208-3058, or call toll-free (877) 341-4585 or visit the settlement website at www.cliqxtsettlement.com.

If You Have Thoughts On The Motorola CLIQ XT Mobile Phone Class Action Settlement, Share Your Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }

If you are a California resident who purchased certain Kashi All Natural / Nothing Artificial Products between August 24, 2007 and May 1, 2014 and/ or Bear Naked 100% Pure & Natural / 100% Natural Products between September 21, 2007 and May 1, 2014 Your Rights May Be Affected by a Class Action Settlement and You May be Eligible for a Cash Refund.

Kashi Company (“Kashi”) and Bear Naked, Inc. (“Bear Naked”) (collectively “Defendants”) have reportedly agreed to proposed settlements of class action lawsuits against them in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (styled Astiana v. Kashi Company, No. 11 CV 1967-H (BGS) and Thurston v. Bear Naked, Inc., No. 11 CV 2890-H (BGS)) alleging, among other things, that Kashi and BearNaked misled consumers by marketing its products as either “All Natural” or “Nothing Artificial” or “100% Pure & Natural” or “100% Natural”  when the products allegedly contained synthetic or artificial ingredients, according to the Kashi & Bear Naked All Natural class action settlement notice.

The proposed Kashi & Bear Naked settlement classes reportedly include, unless otherwise excluded, the following:

Members ofthe Kashi All Natural / Nothing Artificial Food Products Class are those California residents who purchased between August 24, 2007 and May 1, 2014 the specified Kashi Products listed in section II, paragraph A.23 of the Kashi Stipulation of Settlement, available at www.NaturalClassSettlement.com

Members of the Bear Naked 100% Pure & Natural / 100% Natural Class are those California residents who purchased between September 21, 2007 and May 1, 2014 the specified Bear Naked Products listed in section II, paragraph A.23 of the Bear Naked Stipulation of Settlement, available at www.NaturalClassSettlement.com.

Kashi has agreed to create a cash Settlement Fund of $5 million, while Bear Naked has agreed to create a cash Settlement Fund of $325,000. Kashi Settlement class members reportedly will be eligible to receive (1) a cash payment up to a maximum of $25.00, without proof of purchase ($0.50 per qualifying Product purchased for a maximum of 50 Products), and (2) a cash payment of $0.50 for each package purchased with proof of purchase. Bear Naked Settlement class members reportedly will be eligible to receive a cash payment up to a maximum of $10.00, without proof of purchase ($0.50 per qualifying Product purchased for a maximum of 20 Products), and (2) a cash payment of $0.50 for each package purchased with proof of purchase.

For more information about the Kashi All Natural Class Action Settlement, visit www.NaturalClassSettlement.com, write to All Natural Class Actions Settlement Administrator, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10068, Dublin, OH 43017 or call 1-844-322-8154.

If You Have Thoughts On The Kashi All Natural Class Action Settlement, Share Your Kashi Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }

If you were employed by USS-Posco Industries as a non-exempt production and maintenance employee in Pittsburg California, you may be entitled to benefits from the proposed USS-Posco class action settlement.

USS-Posco Industries (“USS-Posco” or “Defendant”) has reportedly agreed to a proposed settlement of an employee wage and hour class action lawsuit against USS-Posco in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (captioned as Cordy v. USS-Posco Industries, Lawsuit Case No. 12-cv-00553-JST) alleging, among other things, that Posco failed to pay  its hourly production and maintenance (“P&M”) employees and workers for all time worked (e.g., for time workers spent donning protective gear, clocking in before shifts, and walking to and from work stations), denied employees’ meal and rest periods, failed to provide itemized wage statements, and failed to timely pay wages upon termination or resignation, according to the court’s order preliminarily approving the USS-Posco class action settlement agreement.

The USS Posco class action settlement reportedly includes the following subclasses of persons, unless otherwise excluded:

Unpaid Time Subclass:

All individuals employed as non-exempt, production and maintenance (“P&M”) employees by USS-Posco at Defendants’ steel-manufacturing plant and facilities in Pittsburg, California at any time from February 2, 2008 to January 17, 2014

Itemized Wage Statement Penalty Subclass:

All individuals employed as non-exempt, production and maintenance (“P&M”) employees by Defendant at Defendants’ steel-manufacturing plant and facilities in Pittsburg, California who performed services for which they received a paycheck for USS-Posco at any time from February 2, 2011 through April 30, 2013, the date Defendant started to provide wage statements that comply with California Labor Code Section 226.

Continual Presence Subclass:

All individuals employed as non-exempt, production and maintenance (“P&M”) employees that held a Continual Presence position at Defendants’ steel-manufacturing plant and facilities in Pittsburg, California who performed services for USS-Posco at any time from February 2, 2008 through May 31, 2011 when Defendant instituted its missed meal period payment system 

Waiting Time Penalty Subclass:

All individuals employed as non-exempt, production and maintenance (“P&M”) employees by USS-Posco at Defendants’ steel-manufacturing plant and facilities in Pittsburg, California who left their employment with Defendant, either by termination or quit, at any time from February 2, 2009 to January 17, 2014.

The USS-Posco Settlement reportedly provides for a Gross Settlement fund of $3,500,000 to pay, among other things, settlement awards to the USS-Posco Class Members, claims-administration fees, enhanced payments to the Class Representatives, and attorney’s fees and costs.

If You Have Thoughts On The USS-Posco Production & Maintenance Employee Wage & Hour Class Action Settlement, Share Your USS-Posco Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 0 comments }

If you have owned or leased a Model Year 2003-2006 Porsche Cayenne vehicle with a V8 engine you could be affected by the Porsche Cayenne class action settlement.

Porsche Cars North America Inc. (“Porsche” or “Defendant”) has reportedly agreed to a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit against Porsche in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (captioned In Re: Porsche Cars North America, Inc. Plastic Coolant Tubes Products Liability Litigation, Case No.: 2:11-MD-2233) alleging, among other things, that certain 2003 to 2006 model year Porsche Cayenne vehicles with V8 engines were equipped with plastic coolant pipes that could prematurely degrade or fracture, according to the Porsche Cayenne class action settlement notice.

Who Is Included In The Porsche Cayenne Class Action Settlement?

The proposed Porsche Cayenne plastic coolant pipe settlement class reportedly includes, unless otherwise excluded, all persons in the United States who currently own or lease or previously owned or leased a Class Vehicle in the United States (i.e., model year 2003 to 2006 Porsche Cayenne vehicles with a V8 engines).

What Settlement Benefits Does The Proposed Porsche Cayenne Class Action Settlement Provide?

Porsche settlement class members who submit valid, timely (no later than December 12, 2014) , and approved claim forms may be entitled to reimbursement for a past coolant pipe repair, replacement with genuine Porsche aluminum coolant pipes or repair of damaged Porsche plastic coolant pipes.  Claim forms are available online at coolantpipesettlement.com/claim

Where Can You Obtain More Information About The Proposed Porsche Cayenne Plastic Coolant Pipe Class Action Settlement?

For more information about the Porsche Cayenne settlement, contact Settlement Administrator at In Re Porsche Cars North America, Inc. Plastic Coolant Tubes Products Liability Litigation c/o GCG PO Box 35081 Seattle, WA 98124-3508, call 1-877-940-0112, fax 614-553-1216, email submission@coolantpipesettlement.com or visit the Porsche settlement website at www.CoolantPipeSettlement.com

If You Have Thoughts On The Porsche Cayenne Plastic Coolant Pipe Class Action Settlement, Share Your Porsche Cayenne Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 7 comments }

If You Receive Royalties from Warner Music Group for Mastertones and Digital Downloads of Recordings You Could Benefit from the Warner Music Group WMG Class Action Settlement.

A class action settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit brought against Warner Music Group (“WMG” or “Warner Music Group” or “Defendant”) the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (styled In Re: Warner Music Group Corp. Digital Downloads Litigation, Case No. 12-CV-0559-RS) alleging that Warner Music Group failed to properly credit royalty payments for digital downloads and mastertones of recordings under certain contracts and claiming that digital downloads and mastertones should be treated as a “license” which typically provide a higher royalty rate rather than as a “sale” of a record, according to the Warner Music Group class action settlement notice.

The Warner Music Group class action settlement includes the following class members:

All persons and entities (and their successors-in-interest, assigns and heirs) that are parties to a Royalty Rate Contract, dated on or prior to December 31, 2001, with a WMG U.S. Label (a WMG U.S. Label means a wholly owned U.S. recorded music subsidiary of WMG; or s partially owned U.S. recorded music subsidiary of WMG for which WMG has the unilateral right to enter into litigation settlements; or any of either of their predecessors in interest).

WMG U.S. Labels  reportedly include Atlantic Recording Corporation, Bad Boy Records LLC, Elektra Entertainment Group Inc., Fueled By Ramen LLC, Nonesuch Records Inc., Rhino Entertainment Company, Warner Bros. Records, Inc. and Word Entertainment LLC.

The WMG Warner Music Group class action settlement provides payments to eligible Class Members for past exploitations of downloads and mastertones from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2012 (i.e., an $11.5 million Settlement Fund) and provides for an increase in the royalty rate for future exploitations.  In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must file claim forms.  A WMG claim form can downloaded online at the WMG Download Settlement Site.

For more information on the In Re: Warner Music Group Corp. Digital Downloads Litigation class action settlement, write to WMG Download Class Settlement, PO Box 8094, Faribault, MN 55021-9494, call the Settlement Administrator at 877-690-7098 or visit the settlement website at www.wmgdownloadsettlement.com

If You Have Thoughts On The WMG Warner Music Group Digital Download Royalty Class Action Lawsuit Settlement, Share Your WMG Warner Music Group Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 3 comments }

Sports Authority Class Action Settlement of Employee Wage and Hour Lawsuit Given Final Court Approval.

A federal judge has given final approval to the The Sports Authority class action settlement of the lawsuit filed against The Sports Authority in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California in Oakland (styled as Khanh Nielson v. The Sports Authority Case No. C 11-4724 SBA) alleging, among other things, that certain Sports Authority retail employees were subject to off-the-clock mandatory security checks of their personal belongings when they left the store, according to the Court’s order granting plaintiffs motion for final approval of the The Sports Authority class action settlement.

The Sports Authority class action settlement reportedly included all persons who are and/or were employeed as non-exempt retail employees by TSA Stores, Inc. d/b/a Sports Authority, in the State of California from August 22, 2007 through the present.  According to the final approval order, the Sports Authority class action settlement resolved plaintiffs’ wage and hour claims in the gross amount of $2,500,000.

The Court reportedly considered “the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement” and found that the Sports Authority settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.

If You Have Thoughts on the the Sports Authority Employee Wage & Hour Class Action Settlement, Share Your Sports Authority Class Action Comments Below.

{ 1 comment }

If you are a current or future adult immigration detainee who has or will have proceedings in immigration court in San Francisco, your rights may be affected by the Department of Homeland Security Immigration Detainee Class Action Settlement.

The United States Department of Homeland Security (“Defendant”) has reportedly agreed to a proposed settlement of an immigration detainee class action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (captioned as Uelian De Abadia-Peixoto v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 3:11-cv-4001 RS) challenging as unconstitutional Defendants’ prior policy and practice of shackling all civil immigration detainees appearing in San Francisco immigration court at their wrists, waists, and ankles during their Master Calendar, Bond, and Merits Hearings without an individualized determination of the need for restraints, according to plaintiffs unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the Department of Homeland Security class action settlement.

The proposed settlement class reportedly consists of all current and future adult immigration detainees who have or will have proceedings in immigration court in San Francisco during the period from December 23, 2011 to three years from the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement.

The Department of Homeland Security class action settlement reportedly provides, among other things, that the Department of Homeland Security will change its policy so that members of the Settlement Class will no longer be restrained during their Bond and Merits Hearings absent narrowly-defined emergency situations, and while Defendants may continue to restrain Settlement Class members during Master Calendar Hearings, Settlement Class members will be allowed under the settlement to request a modification of those restraints when a physical, psychological, or medical condition would prevent the application of restraints in a safe and humane manner. In addition, the settlement reportedly provides that The Department of Homeland Security will not chain detainees to one another under any circumstances.

If You Have Thoughts On The Department of Homeland Security Class Action Settlement, Share Your Class Action Settlement Comments Below.

{ 1 comment }

Avis Class Action Lawsuit Over Shift Manager Pay Under Fair Labor Standards Act FLSA To Remain Certified As A Collective Action.

A federal court has reportedly refused to decertify the Avis class action lawsuit complaint brought against Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC and Avis Rent A Car System, LLC (“Defendants” or “Avis”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (styled as Frederick Ruffin Jr. and Loretta Donatelli v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC and Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, No. 11-1069 (SDW) (MCA)), alleging that Avis misclassified certain employees (Shift Managers) as exempt from the FLSA and failed to pay them for all hours worked as well as overtime compensation even though they allegedly performed non-exempt duties such as cleaning cars, moving cars around the parking lot, checking inventory, renting cars, and/or installing child car seats, according to the Court’s Opinion denying Avis’s Motion for Decertification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action.

The Avis Class Action Lawsuit reportedly consists of a nationwide class of Shift Managers (and other comparable positions) who “are or were formerly employed by Defendants . . . at any time since February 24, 2008 to the entry of judgment in the case.”

The Court reportedly found that the plaintiffs in the Avis Class Action Lawsuit satisfied their burden of demonstrating that they are similarly situated.

If you have thoughts on the Avis Shift Manager Wage & Hour and Overtime Pay Class Action Lawsuit, Share Your Avis Class Action Comments below.

{ 2 comments }