Did you ever receive one of these Chrysler Dodge Ram recalls for defective steering-system tie rods that may have been misaligned during assembly or steering-system service? Did you bring your truck in to have the part replaced? What’s your experience?
Where the hell is Jack Nicholson when you need him? The plaintiff in this case may benefit from some counseling—not the legal type—as he’s apparently got that—but the type that Nicholson doled out in the movie, “Anger Management” (see his Goosfraba therapy in action above.)
Seems Geary Trigleth, plaintiff in a contract law dispute, was quite the colorful character in his recent deposition. And it started when he walked in wearing a t-shirt that screamed, “f*ck you YOU f*cking f*ck”—that’s our man, shown below. Yes, many a plaintiff—and defendant—has thought of showing up at his deposition or in court and giving a few people the F-bomb—but few actually dare to do it. Trigleth is the man, though, and he did.
Things got more interesting from there on as the deposition proceeded at Scheef & Stone law firm in Frisco, TX.
In eloquent terms nonpareil, Trigleth went on to provide passionate commentary regarding defendant Robert Couch.
According to court documents, in referring to Couch, Trigleth stated he was “going to tie that thick necked mother f*cker to a pole and f*ck him up the *ss until he squeals like a pig.”
One can only question whether Trigleth has experience with such. Regardless, speaking of personal relationships, the questioning did at one point veer into Trigleth’s own pursuit of pleasure—or sorry, his possible pursuit of a significant other who just happens to come via mail order (we’re guessing Match.com and Zoosk were off-limits for Trigleth given his online social reach is nil—literally—he has a profile on LinkedIn, but zero connections and his FB friends number 27—so maybe he off-shored love, as one does in these situations).
According to court docs, Attorney J. Mitchell Little started to ask Trigleth a number of relevant questions concerning his status as an accredited investor. Here’s how that went:
Q: Mr. Trigleth, what was the·purpose of the wire transfer that was paid? (Note: Mr. Trigleth also refused to answer and became very agitated at a line of questioning about a prior dispute with Texas Capital Bank where he was alleged to have transferred money for the purpose of acquiring a mail order bride.)
A: Are you gay?
Q: Are you going to answer my question?
A: Are you going to answer my question?
Q: I am here to ask questions.
A: I am here to ask you a question. Are you gay?
Geez. I don’t know—after a while one begins to wonder if a yes or no question starts to sound like a proposition there—or at the very least a fixation of sorts—hey, Little’s an attractive guy and he does have over 500 connections on LinkedIn. But as a little sidenote lest you question the line of questioning in the deposition…here’s a testimonial from Trigleth found over at 1st International Marriage Network (btw, IMBRA stands for International Marriage Broker Regulation Act):
From: Geary Trigleth
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 10:32 AM
To: Vasiliy Savkin
Subject: Re: IMBRA report prepared at NatashaClub site
Thank you so much for your prompt response and assistance. I enjoy your services and site and compliment the efficiency and strategy of the functionality of the site and services supported! I truly feel your attempt to support the members and strategically protect all involved to meet your business needs and empower the site members to employ there powers of there needs is very efficient and effective! I truly appreciate the services rendered and hope to maintain a continual working relationship in the future. My appreciation!
Yessiree, sounds like someone’s been trying to off-shore some lovin’…
Who knows where it all nets out, but suffice to say it’s one of those court appearances we’d love to be an extra Montblanc ink cartridge lying on counsel’s table for…
Dog treats manufacturer to be treated to a little justice perhaps? IMS Trading Corp, aka IMS Pet Industries—maker of Cadet duck jerky treats, is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging it sold products containing duck jerky imported from China that caused dogs to become sick or die. The dog treat lawsuit alleges the company, IMS Trading Corp, aka IMS Pet Industries, is in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and is guilty of unjust enrichment as they falsely assured consumers through the product packaging that the treats were healthy for dogs. Several unnamed companies involved in the manufacture and sale of the dog treats are also named as defendants in the lawsuit.
Lead plaintiff, Marie Dopico, who owns several small dogs, alleges her dogs nearly died after she fed them Cadet duck jerky dog treats she bought in October from a ShopRite grocery store in New Jersey. She claims she had to pay veterinary expenses and other related costs to save her dogs’ lives.
The proposed lawsuit claims that there could be thousands of plaintiffs, as other consumers in New Jersey and across the US have suffered similar damages as a result of defendants’ conduct. The putative class and subclass includes consumers who, up to six years prior to the January filing of the lawsuit, purchased IMS dog treats and whose dogs got sick or died as a result of consuming the allegedly unhealthy and dangerous treats.
According to the lawsuit, the packaging for IMS’ dog treats allegedly states the products do not contain artificial colors, additives, fillers or by-products. The packaging also states that the treats are “healthy and natural treats with only the finest ingredients.” The same claims are found on the company’s website, the plaintiffs allege.
The lawsuit states that in November 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration issued warnings stating that dogs can become ill after eating treats containing duck jerky made in China. The agency has said that more than 3,600 dogs in the US have become ill after eating Chinese jerky treats. This information was not fully disclosed on the company’s website, plaintiffs allege, and they accuse the defendants of hiding the warnings to increase or maintain sales.
“No reasonable person would feed dog treats to their dogs knowing that there was a substantial risk of death or illness from doing so,” the lawsuit states. “Dog owners consider their pets to be members of the family, and become very distressed when their dogs pass away or become seriously ill.”
Hey—no reasonable manufacturer would consider producing food that makes animals ill.
Hilton not honoring wage & hour laws? Maybe. They got hit with a putative wage and hour class action lawsuit this week, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the California labor law Act. In addition to Hilton Worldwide, named defendants include Doubletree LLC, and Crestline Hotels and Resorts LLC.
Filed by Nelson Chico, the Hilton wage & hour lawsuit, entitled Nelson Chico v. Hilton Worldwide Inc. et al., case number BC541043 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, alleges failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide meal or rest breaks. Chico, a former employee, claims the defendants also allowed or required employees to work off the clock.
Further, the lawsuit states the defendants failed to provide itemized statements for each pay period, failed to keep accurate records and failed to compensate employees for necessary expenditures.
Heads up people—the potential employment class action seeks to represent aggrieved employees who worked for the defendants within the past four years.
Actos maker ordered to pay up huge. Japanese drug maker Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, got hit with a heart-attack inducing jury award this week—they were ordered to pay $6 billion in punitive damages in settlement of allegations the company concealed information regarding the risk for cancer associated with its diabetes drug Actos. Eli Lilly and Co, a co-defendant in the case, was ordered to pay $3 billion in punitive damages and $1.45 in compensatory damages by the jury in Louisiana on Monday.
According to Lilly, 75 percent of the liability was allocated to Takeda and 25 percent to Lilly. Takeda plans to dispute the awards, stating that judgments were entered in its favor in all three previous Actos trials. This was the first federal case to be tried in a consolidated multidistrict litigation comprising more than 2,900 lawsuits. Germany and France suspended use of the drug in 2011 due to concerns of a possible link to cancer.
More to come on this? Very possibly. Stay tuned.
Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. See you at the bar!
Is this the “fun” in funeral? Let’s hope not. Plymouth, Mass, was the scene of a recent shooting. It happened during a funeral (why not?) and the accused is claiming self defense. Hey – funerals can be tense affairs. At least the corpse was safe, so to speak. (I know…I know…)
The accused, Gai Scott, of Randolph, pleaded not guilty in Plymouth District Court to armed assault with intent to murder. “When the dust settles with respect to this case, it’s going to be abundantly clear that Mr. Scott, a licensed gun owner, was acting in self-defense and in defense of his family,” said Jon Ciraulo, Gai Scott’s lawyer.
Thirty-six year old Scott is accused of shooting his 48-year old Uncle who goes by the name Benzino—a hip-hop artist and star of the reality TV show, VH1′s “Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta”. Benzino’s real name is Raymond Scott, and he put in a surprise attendance at his mother’s funeral. The incident occurred on Route 3 in Duxbury, during the funeral procession. I’ll bet that livened things up (pardon the pun).
According to a statement issued by the Plymouth district DA, “growing family tension” between the men resulted in the shooting. For his part, Benzino was released from South Shore Hospital in Weymouth earlier this week, very much alive. He said he had paid his respects to his mother in private at the funeral home but decided to skip the procession and funeral because of tensions in the family over money. Apparently, he was on his way to Plymouth to pick up a friend when he came upon the procession and someone opened fire. But he didn’t volunteer any names of the shooter. Not making things any easier for his lawyer here.
The accused was ordered held without bail pending a hearing, and as one might expect, Gai Scott was ultimately denied bail as it was sort of thought he might be a danger to society. Perhaps?
It ain’t all tutus and frills… A pair of brawling Betties—also known to the courts as Kelly Hyland and Abby Lee Miller, of “Dance Moms” fame—or infamy—you choose—finally have a court date. Kelly Hyland is charged with assaulting Abby Miller, and the whole thing is caught on tape. A slam dunk you think—um, not so much, according to the defense lawyer.
The back story—for anyone who failed to follow “Dance Moms”—is that the former star of the Lifetime series instigated a cat fight (as one does) over what role Hyland’s daughter, Brooke, would play in a dance routine—Meow! Gritty stuff indeed. (The pic at right shows a clip posted over at TMZ where Dance Mom Kelly goes at it with Dance Mom Dame Hyland over the amount of time the kids get to learn new routines. Like I said, this is gritty stuff indeed…)
Caught on video, as everything is these days, Hyland is shown losing the plot on dance instructor Abby Lee Miller backstage at Lehman College. “Get your finger out of my face!” Hyland screams before slapping, scratching and pulling Miller’s hair in the scuffle. “She’s crazy,” Miller yells back.
Hyland’s defense lawyer, Paul Martin, said he’s trying to unearth uncut footage of the incident, which he said would show Miller being the aggressor. “My client’s intention is to go trial. She believes that she’s not guilty of any crime and we’re confident that when a jury considers all the evidence that she’ll be vindicated,” Martin said. Yes, good luck with that.
“I think the videotape along with the history of Ms. Miller, my client will be vindicated of any type of criminal wrongdoing.” Guess we’ll see…court date’s set for May…
Toyota rejoins the automotive class action lawsuit alumni this week—with the filing of a new consumer fraud class action alleging it concealed information regarding oil consumption in the engines of some of its most popular models. The lawsuit claims that the engines in certain Toyota vehicles were prone to rapidly burning through oil just as they approached warranty expiration, causing owners thousands of dollars in repair costs. Now that’s convenient.
Filed in California federal court, the complaint alleges the defect can cause safety risk that can lead to catastrophic engine failure. The lawsuit claims the models affected include the Toyota Camry, Corolla, Matrix and RAV4.
According to the complaint, Toyota Motor Corp. was aware of the defect, and it notified authorized dealers of the problem in 2011, however, Toyota refused to pay to fix the vehicles when contacted by the plaintiffs. Really?
“Plaintiffs … bring this claim since the oil consumption defect typically manifests shortly outside of the warranty period for the class vehicles—and given defendants’ knowledge of this concealed, safety-related design defect—Toyota’s attempt to limit the warranty with respect to the oil consumption defect is unconscionable here,” the complaint states. The lawsuit states that the plaintiffs’ vehicles exhausted their oil supply in 3,440 to 4,300 miles ??” well before an oil change would typically be performed at 5,000 miles under Toyota’s recommended maintenance schedule. And, according to the lawsuit, once the plaintiffs contacted Toyota, it refused to repair the vehicles under the warranty, claiming it had either expired or failed to cover the defect.
Toyota was made aware of the problem after receiving information from dealers and records from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The company also knew the nature and extent of the problem from its internal record keeping and durability testing, and from warranty and post-warranty claims, the complaint alleges.
The claims, which seeks unspecified damages, were brought under various state consumer protection and business law statutes, on behalf of consumers in California, Florida, Washington, New York and New Jersey. Additionally, the lawsuit claims violations of express warranty, fraud, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
The vehicles cited in the complaint are the 2007 to 2011 Toyota Camry HV, 2007 to 2009 Toyota Camry, 2009 Toyota Corolla, 2009 Toyota Matrix, 2006 to 2008 Toyota RAV4, 2007 to 2008 Toyota Solara, 2007 to 2009 Scion tC, and 2008 to 2009 Scion xB. The defect is found on 2AZ-FE engines.
Bicycles—that’s the answer… oh dear.
Walgreens may soon be dispensing settlement checks…the pharmacy chain reached a proposed $29 million settlement this week, which involves nine California wage and hour class action lawsuits, consolidated in federal court in California. The lawsuits had all alleged that Walgreens failed to provide its employees with adequate breaks, and pay them overtime for mandatory security checks.
Additionally, the wage and hour lawsuits claimed Walgreens failed to provide duty-free meal and/or rest periods, failed to pay all wages owed at termination, failed to reimburse employees for business expenses, failed to provide itemized wage statements.
The Walgreens settlement covers Walgreens nonexempt employees who worked at a California Walgreens store from May 13, 2007, including pharmacists and regular retail store employees.
A hearing will be held May 12, 2014, to determine whether to grant preliminary approval to the Walgreens unpaid overtime class action settlement.
Walgreens agreed to the settlement as a quick means for a resolution, despite its ongoing dispute of the claims. What – so it costs less to pay your employees than go to court? And the learning here would be?
Although the settlement was agreed in principal in August 2013, it has taken several months to finalize the details, consequently a preliminary settlement hearing will be held May 12, 2014. Here’s hoping…
Trader Joe’s trading a lawsuit for settlement? Heads up all you Trader Joe’s shoppers out there—a potential settlement is in the works regarding the consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against Trader Joe’s. The class action claims certain food products carried and sold at the food retailers’ outlets are labeled as being “All natural”, when they contained synthetic ingredients. Yup. Heard that one before.
The lawsuit goes…certain Trader Joe’s food products were improperly labeled, marketed, supplied, and sold as “All Natural” and/or “100% Natural” even though they contained one or more of the following allegedly synthetic ingredients: ascorbic acid, cocoa processed with alkali, sodium acid pyrophosphate, xanthan gum, and vegetable mono- and diglycerides. The products at issue are: Trader Joe’s Chocolate Vanilla Creme Cookies; Trader Joe’s Chocolate Sandwich Creme Cookies; Trader Joe’s Jumbo Cinnamon Rolls; Trader Joe’s Buttermilk Biscuits; Trader Giotto’s 100% Natural Fat Free Ricotta Cheese; and Trader Joe’s Fresh Pressed Apple Juice.
The proposed Settlement Class (i.e., “Settlement Class Member”) covers a class of plaintiffs who purchased, on or after October 24, 2007 through February 6, 2014, the following Trader Joe’s food products: Trader Joe’s Chocolate Vanilla Creme Cookies; Trader Joe’s Chocolate Sandwich Creme Cookies; Trader Joe’s Jumbo Cinnamon Rolls; Trader Joe’s Buttermilk Biscuits; Trader Giotto’s 100% Natural Fat Free Ricotta Cheese; and Trader Joe’s Fresh Pressed Apple Juice (“Products”).
Trader Joe’s, being the latest in a long line of companies facing similar if not the same allegations, denies it did anything wrong or unlawful, of course. They claim, instead that the Products’ labels were truthful, not misleading, and consistent with the law.
For the complete skinny on the Trader Joe’s class action settlement and to download forms, visit: https://tjallnaturalclassaction.com/
Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. See you at the bar!