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!
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!
It was Ford’s turn this week…its turn to face the class action blues…yessiree—they got hit with a consumer fraud lawsuit alleging personal harm from what appears to be a rather serious design defect.
The Ford lawsuit was filed in Florida by Ford Explorer owners and lessors alleging the automaker mislead consumers about the vehicles’ exhaust system that exposes passengers to dangerous levels of carbon monoxide.
Filed by lead plaintiff Angela Sanchez-Knutson, the complaint alleges that when the air conditioning is on in the Ford Motor Co. sport utility vehicle, the exhaust leaks into the passenger cabin of the cars. This poses a health risk to those in the cars and a safety risk to people on the road.
Sanchez-Knutson further claims that she and her daughter suffer from chronic headaches as a result of exposure to dangerous levels of carbon monoxide in her 2013 Ford Explorer. She alleges she took the car to the local dealership for repair numerous times because of a sulfuric smell. However, at no point in time was she informed that the odor actually signified exposure to the gas.
An internal technical service bulletin distributed by Ford to its dealerships showed that the automaker was aware that certain Explorer models’ exhaust systems were leaking into the cabins of the cars when the air conditioning was turned on, the complaint states.
The bulletin provided dealerships with instructions on how handle the smell in the vehicles but did not specify that carbon monoxide was seeping into the cabins or provide any remedies to protect consumers from the risk of exposure, according to the lawsuit.
“Ford knew or should have known that the 2011 through 2013 model year Ford Explorers were dangerous and defective such that drivers and passengers of those vehicles may be exposed to carbon monoxide and other dangerous gases while the vehicles are in operation,” the complaint states.
The complaint alleges Ford violated the vehicles’ express and limited warranties, since the contracts guaranteed that the vehicles were defect-free. All of the affected vehicles are still under warranty with the company, the lawsuit states.
As a result of filing the lawsuit, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that it is looking into the exhaust allegations. The agency said it was aware of complaints involving the vehicles but that it had not initiated a formal investigation.
The lawsuit seeks to certify a class of all consumers in Florida who purchased or leased the 2011 to 2013 Explorer models. The suit is Sanchez-Knutson v. Ford Motor Company, case number 0:14-cv-61344, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Exhausted yet? Wait–there’s more! Caterpillar Inc. also got hit with a class action lawsuit over claims that its heavy-duty on-highway diesel engines, designed to adhere to 2007 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions regulations, contain a design defect that requires extensive repairs and replacements. Nice!! This is all sounding so familiar!
The Caterpillar lawsuit alleges Caterpillar’s 2007-2010 model C-13 and C-15 engines have defective exhaust emission controls which make the vehicles unreliable for transportation. Further, despite repeated repairs, they cannot be permanently fixed.
According to the complaint, the engines’ exhaust emission control systems regularly detect warning and shutdown readings from the software used to regulate and monitor certain components, causing the vehicle to require authorized exhaust emission control diagnoses that eventually are unable to rectify the problem.
“This caused plaintiff and class members to incur significant damages in the diminution of the value of their vehicles, but also in the cost of replacing the … engines with other EPA 2007 Emission Standard compliant heavy-duty, on-highway, diesel engines.” the lawsuit states.
K Double D Inc, lead plaintiff in the class action, alleges it purchased a vehicle featuring the 2007 heavy-duty on-highway diesel engine that suffered engine and regeneration problems, which resulted in thousands of dollars in damages to the company.
Further, K Double D claims that despite extensive repair work, the engine experienced repeated instances of warning lights illuminating, engine derating and shutdown, regeneration failure and more, as well as other failures that prevented it from working properly.
“Despite defendant’s numerous attempts to correct the … failures, the … engine exhaust emission controls do not function as required under all operating conditions, and will not do so for the expected life of the vehicle,” the lawsuit states.
The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all vehicle owners and lessees who purchased or leased a vehicle containing the engines. The lawsuit alleges claims of breach of express and implied warranty, negligence, unfair and deceptive acts and more.
The suit is K Double D Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., case number 1:14-cv-01760, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
Heads up all you California crunchy granolas! A settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against Kashi Co. According to the terms of the settlement, a fund of $5 million will be established by Kashi, which will resolve claims of false advertising, the grounds for the lawsuit.
Ok—so I think we know the tune here—the Kashi lawsuit, Astiana v. Kashi Co., Case No. 3:11-cv-01967-H-BGS, alleged the food manufacturer misled consumers by claiming that certain of its products are “All Natural” and “Nothing Artificial” even though they contained synthetic ingredients, such as pyridoxine, hydrochloride, calcium pantothenate and/or hexane-processed soy ingredients. Got it?
Class Members of the Kashi class action settlement include California residents who purchased certain Kashi products between August 24, 2007 and May 1, 2014.
Ok–Folks–we’re done here–have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!
What’s your GM Vehicle Worth these Days? Less than it was a few months ago—according to a new class action lawsuit filed against General Motors Co., (GM) this week. The GM lawsuit follows the latest round of GM Recalls, alleging the automotive manufacturer’s reputation has been so badly damaged that even vehicles not included in the recalls have depreciated in value. The lawsuit is seeking in excess of $10 billion on behalf of all GM vehicle owners. The recalls allegedly constitute 25 percent more than what would be seen in a normal year, and almost 20 times more than the number or recalls issued during the same period in 2013, the lawsuit claims.
According to the GM lawsuit, GM marketed its vehicles as safe and reliable which mislead consumers into purchasing or leasing their cars, because the company was, at the same time, intentionally concealing known defects and valuing cost-cutting over safety, eventually leading all GM vehicles to depreciate in value due to its now-ruined brand.
“GM enticed … all GM vehicle purchasers to buy vehicles that have now diminished in value as the truth about the GM brand has come out, and a stigma has attached to all GM-branded vehicles,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit claims that the forced recalls of over 17 million vehicles has severely damaged the company’s reputation. According to the lawsuit there are about 40 different recalls covering 35 separate defects. All the recalls took place in the first few months of 2014.
“GM’s now highly publicized campaign of deception in connection with the ignition-switch defect sent shockwaves throughout the country, and jump-started the ever-burgeoning erosion of consumer confidence in the GM brand,” the complaint states.
The suit alleges that the 2010 and 2011 Chevrolet Camaro models have both been diminished between February, before the recalls began, and now, depreciating $2,000 in value. Further, the 2009 Pontiac Solstice went down $2,900 in value during that time, according to the lawsuit. According to the complaint, GM’s vehicles have depreciated in value because “no reasonable consumer” will pay the price they would have paid when the GM brand meant “safety and success.”
If certified, the class will represent GM consumers nationwide who own or lease a new or used vehicle sold between July 10, 2009, and April 1, as well as consumers who sold their GM vehicles at a “diminished price” on or after April 1. The class excludes consumers who own or lease certain Chevrolet Cobalt, Chevrolet HHR, Pontiac G5s, Saturn Ions and Saturn Sky vehicles.
The suit also seeks to certify a California subclass of GM vehicle owners and lessors, in addition to those who sold their cars at depreciated value.
The suit is Andrews et al v. General Motors LLC, case number 5:14-cv-1239, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
PetCode Problems? Heads up…Petco customers—they got zapped with Zip code class action this week. According to the proposed Petco class action lawsuit the animal supplies retailer is in violation of Massachusetts state law through their collection of customers’ zip codes.
According to lead plaintiffs Jeffrey Scolnick and Leah Crohn,Petco would not allow them to complete credit card purchases without their first providing the retailer with their ZIP codes, even though the store is not required by credit card issuers to collect this information from customers. Consequently, the plaintiffs allege they have received unwanted marketing materials from Petco. Further, they allege the store has sold their information to third parties without their consent and for marketing purposes.
“Petco recorded plaintiffs’ ZIP codes into an electronic credit card transaction form,” the complaint states. “Petco continues to store plaintiffs’ personal identification information, including plaintiffs’ name, ZIP code and credit card number, in its databases.”
The lawsuit, entitled, Scolnick et al. v. Petco Animal Supplies Store Inc., case number 1:14-cv-12547, states that Massachusetts’ high court has determined that ZIP codes constitute personal information under the Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act, which prohibits the collection of personal information by retailers. Consumers place a high value on the privacy of their personal identifiable information, the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit seeks to represent all customers from whom Petco requested personally identifiable information when making a credit card purchase in Massachusetts, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs said they do not yet know the potential number of class members.
Best Buy done for less than Best Practices. Plaintiffs in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act TCPA class action lawsuit against Best Buy have finalized a $4.55 million settlement deal. The lawsuit, with a Washington state class of 439,000 members, and a national class of 42,000 members, was initially filed in April 2010 by Michael Chesbro who alleged Best Buy automatically signed customers up for its Rewards Zone program without their knowledge when they purchased electronics under a payment plan. Best Buy then made unsolicited phone calls to those consumers with information about that program.
According to the terms of the Best Buy settlement, filed June 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, class members will receive their pro rata share from the settlement fund, once court-awarded fees, litigation and administrative costs and the class representative incentive award have been deducted. This will leave an estimated $3.2 million for distribution among class members, equally between $50 and $100 per call.
Michael Chesbro is to receive a $5,000 service award for services he has rendered to the classes by stepping forward to bring this case, according to the settlement papers.
Ok – Folks – we’re done here – have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!