It’s a lawsuit brought by a New Jersey doc—a cardiologist at Robert Wood University Hospital—Zyad Younan, just 41-years old and busted. Well, taken to the cleaners more like. Seems when it comes to matters of the heart, he may be a bit more book-smart than street-smart…
Dr. Younan allegedly got done in by a group of girlies who falsely presented themselves as sisters and cousins—and who showed him a good time, which cost him $130K. Oh yes my friends, that old ploy. While he’s presumably not disputing he was up for the party, he is disputing the price, and claims he can’t even remember any of what happened. The lawsuit alleges the girls drugged him during their frivolities. That’s sucks (pardon the pun), so no good memories at all out of this one.
The backstory, a 26-year old brunette bombshell, Karina Pascucci, who claimed to be a “nursing major” but in reality is a former bartender with a couple of years community college under her skirt, made cozy with the good doctor in Manhattan last fall.
“She claimed to be a nursing student who had recently moved back to New York to pursue her education,” the bachelor cardiologist claims in his recently filed lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, Pascucci, “the RN-in-training,” pursued the doctor fervently, joining him for a Van Morrison concert at Madison Square Garden and three dinners in Manhattan for “what [Younan] believed were dates.”
Younan claims he did not get suspicious when Pascucci showed up with her gorgeous “cousin” Samantha, and “sister” Kimberly. Really? Like, he didn’t even think to Google any of them? According to the lawsuit, there were other striking women who joined them on the outings as well. OK, I am having a wee bit of difficulty believing he was so believing—although I get the biology behind it.
“Unbeknownst to Younan, Karina along with Marsi, Samantha, [another woman named] Roselyn and Scores [the jiggle joint where the girls work] agreed to participate in a scheme to defraud and steal money from Younan and others by luring them into supposed romantic relationships, then drugging and taking advantage of them by obtaining their credit cards and charging unauthorized amounts,” the lawsuit says.
It took American Express to wake Dr. Younan up. Hey, membership has its privileges. And thankfully AMEX raised that little, “gee, doc, are you sure those purchases are legit?” red flag as it helped kick off an 8-month investigation into the swindling strippers’ M.O.
According to the New York Post, Younan confronted Pascucci, who allegedly tried to blackmail him with video footage of the doctor at Scores. Hey, a girl’s gotta make a living.
But the doc wasn’t having it, according to the lawsuit, despite the best efforts of Samantha Barbash, another alleged ringleader, who tried to persuade Younan to pay the bill, saying, “I thought you were a god? Why would you not wanna pay your bill?” in a Nov. 26, 2013, text message. (New York Post)
A third member of the girl group, Marsi Rosen, sent a message a day later saying, “This isn’t the Zyad I know and love. It’s the holidays babe these poor girls need there [sic] $, have a heart.”
The doctor shot back, “I don’t need to speak with swindlers.” Well done! That’s telling them.
At the moment, Younan is seeking unspecified damages from Pascucci, her colleagues and Scores. And in a crazy twist, the club is suing Younan for the $135K in unpaid bills, which Younan says are false bills.
So, pick your side and lawyer up…. know which one I’d choose.
Suing Subaru… that’s right folks…if you own or lease certain Forester, Legacy, Outback, Impreza and Crosstek models you can join a Subaru class action lawsuit alleging the company knowingly sold vehicles containing a defect that causes the cars to consume excessive amounts of oil. Also known as consumer fraud…
According to the complaint, filed by Lead plaintiffs Keith Yaeger and Michael Schuler, Subaru concealed from consumers the fact that certain Forester, Legacy, Outback, Impreza and Crosstek models have defective piston rings that prevent the engine from maintaining the proper level of oil and cause an abnormal amount of oil consumption, leading to engine failure and increasing the risk of accident.
“Not only did Subaru actively conceal the material fact that particular components within the class vehicles’ engines are defective, they did not reveal that the existence of the defect would diminish the intrinsic and resale value of the class vehicles and lead to the safety concerns described herein,” the lawsuit states.
Yaeger and Schuler bought new Subarus in 2012 and 2013 respectively, after which they independently noticed their new vehicles were consuming engine oil at an “unacceptable” rate. They were forced to add oil to their cars between Subaru’s recommended engine oil change intervals in order to avoid engine failure, the complaint states.
Further, the lawsuit states that both plaintiffs took their vehicles to their Subaru dealerships for repairs, but despite extensive servicing, the Subarus continued to burn through oil rapidly.
The plaintiffs allege Subaru has known of the oil consumption defect in model years 2011-14 Subaru Forester 2.5L, 2013 Legacy 2.5L, 2013 Outback 2.5L, 2012-13 Impreza 2.0L and 2013 XV Crosstek 2.0L vehicles, for some time, through numerous complaints received from dealers and consumers through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Regardless, the lawsuit states, Subaru actively concealed the defect from consumers. The company has also “routinely refused” to repair the vehicles without charge, according to the complaint.
Subaru updated its online information to acknowledge that certain vehicles run through oil quickly, but has not recalled the vehicles to repair the defect, offered its customers a suitable repair or replacement free of charge or offered to reimburse customers who have paid to repair the cars, the lawsuit states.
The putative class alleges violations of New Jersey and California consumer protection laws, breach of express warranty, common law fraud and more. The complaint asks the judge to certify a nationwide class of current or former owners or lessees of the affected vehicles, in addition to California, Florida and New Jersey state subclasses.
The lawsuit is Yaeger et al. v. Subaru of America Inc. et al., case number 1:14-cv-04490, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Overworked and underpaid… The grocery chain Kroger Co. and several of its units are facing a wages and overtime class action lawsuit filed by its delivery drivers in California. According to the putative class in the Kroger lawsuit, the workers weren’t fully paid for the many overtime hours they worked. Know this story?
Defendants Kroger and its units Ralphs Grocery Co., Foods Co. and two Food 4 Less entities allegedly failed to pay more than 1,000 drivers, dispatchers and delivery-support staff wages and overtime, while requiring them to work extra hours the complaint states.
Lead plaintiff, Jesse Blanco, alleges the stores “routinely required plaintiffs to work more than eight hours per day and, in some instances, more than twelve hours per day, and more than forty hours per workweek and, in some instances, seven days for extended, ongoing time periods.” Further, Blanco claims the companies cut wages by rounding time; “failed and refused to pay overtime”; and cheated the workers of meal and rest breaks required by California law.
FYI—the putative class includes all hourly delivery drivers, dispatchers and support staff employed by the stores in the four years leading up to the complaint. The plaintiffs are asking for a permanent injunction, compensatory damages and a variety of penalties. Yeah Baby!
Sony singing the “I will pay you” blues…to the tune of $15 million—at least according to a preliminary settlement reached in the pending data breach class action lawsuit. If approved, the settlement would see $15 million in games and online currency made available to class members as well as identity theft reimbursement. The lawsuit was brought by PlayStation Network (PSN) users affected by a massive 2011 Sony Corp. data breach.
Eligible class members include all persons residing in the US who had a PlayStation Network account or sub-account, a Qriocity account, or a Sony Online Entertainment account at any time prior to May 15, 2011, when it was revealed that hackers had broken into Sony’s network and obtained data on as many as 31 million account holders.
According to the Sony settlement agreement, Sony will provide affected consumers with “various benefits,” depending on the type of accounts they had and if they can prove that their data was misused, to resolve the dispute over the 2011 breach.
Following the discovery of the data breach, Sony offered its PSN users free identity theft protection, among other benefits. However, under the terms of the settlement agreement any class members who didn’t take that deal can choose two items from a mix of games, online display themes and a three-month subscription to Sony’s PlayStation Plus service, with a cap set at $6 million.
For those class members who did take Sony’s initial package, they will receive one of the items, with a cap set at $4 million. Class members who weren’t part of PSN but had accounts for a different Sony gaming service will get $4.50 of in-game currency, with a $4 million cap.
Sony agreed to reimburse up to $2,500 per class member for the identity theft claims, up to $1 million. It also allowed users to transfer any unused online currency into cash and give some class members a one-month subscription to its music streaming service.
Sony customers that fall within the class definition will be automatically bound to the settlement unless they opt out. Class members who wish to opt out from the settlement class have 21 days prior to the date of the final fairness hearing in May to notify the court of their intention to opt-out.
The case is In re: Sony Gaming Networks and Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, case number 3:11-md-02258, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
Ok Folks—We’re Done Here—Have a wonderful weekend—we’ll see you at the bar!
A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.
Many workplaces in the US are now considered to have put workers at high-risk for asbestos exposure—decades ago. These include: US Navy, oil refineries, shipyards, chemical manufacturing facilities, aerospace manufacturing facilities, mines, smelters, coal fired power plants, construction work sites, auto repair shops, plumbers, welders, electricians, and most manufacturing, or industrial plants that were operating in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s.
Sadly, many individuals who served in the US Navy, worked at a power plant, an oil refinery, or a shipyard decades ago are now being diagnosed with asbestos disease—the average age of diagnosis of asbestos mesothelioma is 72 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control, (CDC).
Although strict regulations about the use of asbestos have been put in place, the potential for asbestos exposure remains. In 2009, the CDC reported:
“Although asbestos has been eliminated in the manufacture of many products, it is still being imported (approximately 1,730 metric tons in 2007) and used in the United States in various construction and transportation products. Ensuring a future decrease in mesothelioma mortality requires meticulous control of exposures to asbestos and other materials that might cause mesothelioma. Recent studies suggest that carbon nanotubes (fiber-shaped nanoparticles), which are increasingly being used in manufacturing, might share the carcinogenic mechanism postulated for asbestos and induce mesothelioma, underscoring the need for documentation of occupational history in future cases.” The full report can be accessed at the CDC’s webpage: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5815a3.htm
St. Clair County, IL: A former railroad engineer has filed an asbestos lawsuit alleging he developed lung cancer as a result of career-related asbestos exposure.
Gary W. Davis filed the lawsuit against Union Pacific Railroad Company stating that during his 38-year career as a hostler, fireman and engineer for Union Pacific he was exposed to various toxic substances, including asbestos, diesel exhaust, environmental tobacco smoke, silica and creosote, which led to his diagnosis of lung cancer.
As a result of his cancer, Davis suffered great pain and disability, lost his enjoyment of life and suffered mental anguish, the lawsuit states. Further, Davis claims he has suffered extreme nervousness, incurred great costs and lost income as a result of the illness.
He claims the defendant is responsible for causing his injuries, saying it failed to monitor the system to determine whether employees’ exposure to asbestos was below prescribed limits, failed to provide special clothing, failed to collect work environment samples and failed to implement proper engineering controls, among other negligent actions.
Davis is seeking a judgment of more than $100,000, plus costs. (madisonrecord.com)
Boston, MA: An Oxford environmental company has been sued for allegedly failing to follow proper procedures and safety precautions while removing asbestos-containing materials from a home in Sturbridge, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced today.
The lawsuit against Patriots Environmental Corporation, filed Monday in Suffolk Superior Court, also alleges that the company failed to pay permit fees to the Commonwealth for at least 24 separate projects, as well as a $50,000 penalty by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) for asbestos and hazardous waste violations at other sites.
According to the complaint, in July 2013, Patriots was hired to remove asbestos shingles from the exterior walls of a single-family home in Sturbridge. During the renovation, Patriots allegedly caused the asbestos shingles to break apart, dropping debris onto on the ground and into unsealed plastic bags exposed to the air. Patriots also allegedly failed to wet, cover, or keep in sealed containers the transite asbestos shingles that it removed during the renovation.
Further, the complaint also alleges that Patriots, for at least 25 asbestos removal or construction and demolition projects between November 2012 and December 2013, failed to pay required permit application fees when notifying the Commonwealth of the intended operations. Additionally, Patriots failed to pay a civil administrative penalty of approximately $50,000 assessed by MassDEP against Patriots for its illegal handling of asbestos and hazardous waste at various sites in the Commonwealth in 2008.
The lawsuit seeks civil penalties for Massachusetts Clean Air Act violations, as well as payment of the outstanding fees and penalties.(mass.gov)
Boston, MA: A $9.3 million settlement has been awarded by a Massachusetts jury hearing an asbestos trial in which the plaintiffs alleged a former pipefitter union business manager was exposed to Limpet spray insulation made by Turner & Newall Ltd.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts jury reached the verdict on June 20 after a two-week trial. T&N Ltd, was the lone remaining defendant at the time of the verdict. The plaintiff was exposed to the product in the 1960s. (harrismartin.com)
Boise, ID: The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has agreed to settle with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for alleged violations of asbestos regulations.
In April 2013, ITD hired inmates at the St. Anthony Idaho Work Camp, a division of the Idaho Department of Correction, to remove approximately 460 feet of flooring tiles at an ITD maintenance station in Rigby using mechanical chippers and buffers. Waste from this project had been contaminated with asbestos, which was placed in a trash dumpster—a violation of asbestos disposal protocols. The material was then removed from the site to a landfill unapproved to handle asbestos waste. The EPA was notified of the incident by a worker and supervisor on the job site.
The workers had not been trained in asbestos handling or disposal, and accepted methods of waste disposal were not used.
The last asbestos test performed on the site took place in July 1989, and a single sample taken during that examination tested negative for the noxious material. However, industry standards indicate that such exams include multiple tests. After learning of the EPA’s allegations seven months after the alleged incident, the ITD hired a consultant to perform an independent test, during which two-thirds of samples taken by the consultant tested positive for asbestos.
In the settlement, released July 9, ITD has agreed to pay a $55,800 penalty. As part of that settlement, ITD neither admits nor denies allegations made by the EPA. (boiseweekly.com)
Denver, CO: Colorado Attorney General John Suthers announced that Tri State Environmental Group and Aftermath Cleanup & Remediation Services, LLC, will pay fines totaling $1 million for failing to properly dispose of asbestos containing waste material (ACWM). The fine will be split evenly between the two asbestos abatement disposal companies. The owner of the companies, James Joseph Duran (D.O.B. 04/01/66), and the companies themselves were sentenced after all three plead guilty to the crime of Causing and Contributing to a Hazardous Substance Incident which is a felony under Colorado law.
An Arapahoe District Court judge sentenced Duran and his companies for criminal behavior that also violated Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s regulations regarding illegal storage of ACWM. The Environmental Crimes Unit of the Attorney General’s Office partnered with the Environmental Protection Agency, Criminal Investigation Division and the CDPHE to investigate and prosecute the case.
Beginning in 2009, Duran began abandoning ACWM without following the proper safety procedures which caused a series of hazardous substance incidents. Duran and his companies also knowingly violated emissions regulations of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. Finally, Duran, Aftermath and Tri State knowingly concealed violations from law enforcement and CDPHE officials.
James Duran pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 500 hours of community service and six years of probation. He was also ordered to pay $2,538 in restitution. Both Aftermath Cleanup & Remediation Services and Tri State Environmental Group pleaded guilty and were each sentenced to a $500,000 fine.
The Environmental Crimes Unit of the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division and the CDPHE, all members of the Colorado Environmental Task Force, investigated a series of crimes that brought Duran and his companies to justice. (coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/)
Kindred Healthcare, is not taking care of its own… according to California wage and hour class action lawsuit filed this week. You probably know the song sheet by heart by now—but permit me a wee refresher. KH and its affiliates, Professional Healthcare at Home, LLC and NP Plus, LLC are accused, by its caregiver employees in California, of failing to pay minimum wage and overtime (really?), and violating meal and rest period laws.
FYI—Kindred is one of the largest post-acute health service providers in the US.
Ginger Rogers, (not making that up) one of the named plaintiffs in the Kindred Healthcare class action, said “I believe they didn’t pay me all my wages when I was assisting a Kindred client in her home. And when I went to care for another client in a facility, I had to work long shifts without any meal or rest breaks.” Emma Delores Hawkins, another named plaintiff, was allegedly denied overtime pay for work performed, according to the complaint.
This one’s just out the gate. It will be interesting to see how it grows…
Now it’s Unilever’s turn to have a bad hair day. The chemical manufacturer and maker of Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit and defendant in a defective products class action lawsuit, received final approval of a $10.2 million settlement, which some of the plaintiffs thought to be too low. But—as the judge pointed out—they are free to drop out and file their own lawsuits. The class action alleged that Unilever PLC’s Suave Keratin hair products caused consumers to suffer hair loss and/or scalp injury. Really not the desired effect, I’m betting.
The backstory—the Suave lawsuit was filed in August 2012, claiming Unilever made false and misleading statements about the safety of the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, which was recalled in May 2012. Specifically, the complaint asserts that Unilever failed to inform consumers that the hair product posed an unreasonable risk of hair and/or scalp injury. The lawsuit is Sidney Reid, et al. v. Unilever United States Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-06058, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Under the terms of the Suave Keratin settlement, a Reimbursement fund of approximately $250,000 and an Injury fund of about $10 million will be created. The Injury Fund will compensate Class Members who were injured by the Suave Keratin product for medical expenses and emotional distress associated with their Smoothing Kit injuries. Class Members who suffered Smoothing Kit injuries may submit a claim for reimbursement ranging from $40 to $25,000, depending on the extent of their injuries and proof of their treatment expenses.
Class Members who did not suffer an injury from the Smoothing Kit are eligible for a reimbursement of up to $10.
Keratin Suave class members include all persons who purchased the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit in the United States for personal or home use before February 17, 2014.
For detailed information about the settlement, and filing a claim, visit www.Suave30DaySmoothingKitLawsuit.com.
We haven’t seen one of these in a while… Final approval has been granted in the $14.5 million settlement of consumer fraud class action involving overdraft fees charged by Comerica Bank NA. The class action involved people who had been charged overdraft fees on their Comerica Bank accounts between 2004 and 2010. The Comerica overdraft class action lawsuit alleged the bank posted debit card transactions in dollar amounts ordered from highest to lowest so as to maximize the number of overdraft fees it could levy against its customers.
According to the lawsuit, rather than declining transactions that would put a customer into overdraft, Comerica authorized the transactions, subsequently processing them in an order that would increase the banks’ overdraft revenue.
Eligible class members include anyone who held a Comerica bank account in Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan or Texas and incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of Comerica’s non-consecutive posting of transactions between 2004 and 2010. Specific class periods vary by state.
The Class Periods by state are:
• For Settlement Class Members who opened accounts in Arizona, the period from February 18, 2004 through August 15, 2010.
• For Settlement Class Members who opened accounts in California, the period from February 18, 2006 through August 15, 2010.
• For Settlement Class Members who opened accounts in Florida, the period from February 18, 2005 through August 15, 2010.
• For Settlement Class Members who opened accounts in Michigan, the period from February 18, 2004 through August 15, 2010.
• For Settlement Class Members who opened accounts in Texas, the period from February 18, 2006 through August 15, 2010.
Eligible class members must have had two or more Overdraft Fees caused by debits posted to their accounts on a single day during the time period listed above. For further information on the Comerica class action lawsuit settlement, and to download forms, visit: http://comericabankoverdraftsettlement.com/Home.aspx
The case is Simmons v. Comerica Bank NA, Case No. 10-cv-22959, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It is part of multidistrict litigation known as In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, Case No. 1:09-md-02036-JLK, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Ok Folks—We’re Done Here—Have a wonderful weekend—we’ll see you at the bar!
Heads up all you Designers and Creatives out there…Adobe Creative Suite billing may just be a little too creative. Adobe got his with a consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week alleging the software maker charges an illegal termination penalty for cloud subscription access to its blockbuster applications such as Photoshop and Illustrator.
Filed by Scotty Mahlum, in California Federal Court, the Adobe lawsuit alleges that Adobe’s early termination fee, which can add up to hundreds of dollars, violates California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. It sure seems to be a blatant cash grab—opinion here…
“[The fee] is designed to maintain recurring revenue by preventing subscribers from cancelling, rather than to compensate for any damages sustained by [Adobe],” Mahlum said. [If Adobe] “has suffered any damage upon early cancellation, the ETFs are not a reasonable measure or approximation of such damages.”
According to the complaint, a monthly subscription for access to Adobe’s complete cloud suite is $49.99 or $9.99 per month for access to individual programs. But if consumers end their contracts early, Adobe charges them 50 percent of the remaining value of the contract. “Because Adobe has no expenses after a subscriber downloads Creative Cloud Software to a computer, 50% of the remaining contract obligation is a windfall for Adobe,” the lawsuit states.
The Creative Cloud programs include Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Premiere, After Effects, Audition, Dreamweaver and other programs.
The subscription contract is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition and gives consumers no opportunity for term negotiation, the Adobe lawsuit contends. Mahlum alleges Adobe phased out the option to buy copies of the software outright in the spring of 2013 and that he signed up for a complete plan in October but canceled it in March.
Mahlum seeks a permanent injunction against collection of the ETFs and wants the company to pay back all ETFs it has collected from the class, which he says should include all current or former subscribers in the U.S. who were charged the fee.
In a December earnings report, Adobe revealed it had ended the 2013 fiscal year with 1.4 million Creative Cloud paid subscriptions, an increase of 1.1 million over the course of the year. The lawsuit contends that Adobe’s revenue from the cloud model jumped from $160 million in the second quarter of 2012 to $255 million in the second quarter of 2013.
The case is Mahlum v. Adobe Systems Inc., case number 5:14-cv-02988, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
It would appear there’s Nothing Fluid about this Crap… at least according to some very pissed off consumers who filed consumer fraud class-action lawsuit against Fluidmaster Inc., this week. The lawsuit claims that the plumbing product and toilet repair company knowingly sold defective toilet connectors that spontaneously broke, causing millions of dollars in property damage at homeowners’ expense. Nice!!!
The Fluidmaster complaint, filed April 24, 2014, in the US District Court for the Central District of California, states that Fluidmaster elected to sell faulty plastic toilet connectors even when it was mechanically and financially feasible for the company to sell an existing, safer alternative design. According to the lawsuit, more than a million defective toilet connectors were sold in the US. Ok—that’s a lot of folks. That’s a lot of damage.
Apparently, upon realizing that its plastic toilet connectors were routinely cracking, leaking and causing significant damage, Fluidmaster responded by lowering its 10-year warranty to five years, according to the lawsuit. The complaint’s two named plaintiffs experienced massive property damage after their Fluidmaster toilet connectors spontaneously failed. One of the plaintiffs, Brian Kirsch, received a call while on vacation from his garbage collector informing Kirsch that water was spilling from an upstairs window of his home and raining into his garage. Kirsch’s home had to be gutted and completely renovated while he and his family were displaced.
Due to the material and design of the toilet connector, the plastic was susceptible to bending with weight and pressure over time, according to the suit. The complaint also cites the company’s poor instructions and warnings that failed to provide the customer with sufficient information to safely and properly install the connectors.
After reducing the product’s warranty, Fluidmaster began to redesign the toilet connector in mid-2011, marketing and selling a new, reinforced connector. According to the complaint, the company never publicized that the product was redesigned and did not recall the defective products from its distribution networks. It also did not notify property owners that the defective products could spontaneously fail and should be replaced, keeping the defective products in use, according to the complaint. That’s just plain shitty (couldn’t resist!)
J. Crew to pony up for Illegal Zip Code Collection….Yup—a preliminary settlement has been approved in a zip code collection class action lawsuit pending against J. Crew Group Inc. The lawsuit alleged the retailer unlawfully collected customers’ ZIP codes during credit card purchases and used the information to send unsolicited marketing materials to those customers.
According to the terms of the J. Crew settlement, J Crew will provide $20 vouchers to eligible class and a $3,000 award to the class representative, lead plaintiff Lauren Miller, who alleged the company began sending her unsolicited junk mail after she made two credit card purchases in 2011 and 2012. Prior to providing her ZIP code during those transactions, she hadn’t received any promotional materials, according to the complaint.
Miller had urged the judge to approve the settlement earlier in the month, telling the judge that the settlement sufficiently covered the damages stemming from J. Crew’s allegedly improper ZIP code collection.
“The action seeks to redress J. Crew’s alleged unlawful invasion of its customers’ privacy and its alleged violation of the laws of the commonwealth of Massachusetts designed to protect consumers’ rights to be free from intrusive corporate data collection and marketing. The settlement substantially achieves this goal,” Miller said in a memorandum.
The settlement will put to bed claims of the proposed class of Massachusetts customers who used a credit card at the retailer’s stores after June 20, 2009, and whose ZIP code was subsequently recorded. J. Crew denies any wrongdoing.
The class action is Miller et al v J. Crew Group, case number 1:13-cv-11487, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Ok Folks—Happy Fourth of July—Have a wonderful weekend—and we’ll see you at the bar!