Mileage is a big issue these days. While some want higher mileage in their cars to try to protect the environment, others simply want to save some cash at the gas station. Whichever reason you use, it is enough for consumers to get testy when they discover the new car they bought does not get the mileage they were promised.

In November of 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that Hyundai and Kia carmakers had exaggerated the mileage on the window stickers on nearly 1.1 million 2011-2013 model-year vehicles. Most vehicles were receiving an average of 1 mpg less than advertised but others, such as the Kia Soul, were getting as much as 6 mpg less than advertised.
Both automakers made public apologies, calling the discrepancies “procedural errors” but the class action lawsuits allege that Hyundai and Kia knowingly overstated the estimated mileage of their vehicles in order to get customers to buy them.

Recently, 12 class actions against the two car companies which are currently pending in Alabama, California, Illinois, New Jersey, and Ohio have been consolidated into one multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Central District of California. An additional 22 class action lawsuits pending in 12 different districts may join the MDL.

The Espinosa case was the first filed and is the most advanced in litigation. For these reasons, they wished to abstain from the MDL but the panel on MDL did not deem their case advanced enough to warrant granting that request.

According to the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, consolidating the class actions into one “will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.”

Certain plaintiffs against Kia wanted a separate MDL for Kia-only classes. This motion was denied for three reasons: 1) Hyundai and Kia share a parent company, 2) the testing for both companies was done at the same facility in Korea, and 3) the announcement made on November 2, 2012 regarding the procedural errors in the mileage estimates and launch of the related mileage reimbursement programs were made on behalf of both Kia and Hyundai.
The case is being transferred to the Central District of California because that is where the defendants are based as well as where the majority of the lawsuits have been filed. Judge George H. Wu has been presiding over the Espinosa action for over a year and is therefore the most qualified to act as the transferee judge for the MDL.

Continue reading ›

The Consumer Law and Policy Blog has “reported many times on the error-prone credit reporting industry and the industry’s violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Go, for example, here, here, and here.”
Today, the Federal Trade Commission issues a eight-year study of the industry showing that up to 40 million Americans have a mistake on their credit report. Twenty million have serious mistakes. Last night, 60 Minutes aired a report on the FTC’s study and its “own investigation of the credit reporting industry [that] shows that … mistakes can be nearly impossible to get removed from your [credit] record.”

Continue reading ›

 

“From pretending to be police or attorneys to calling you at all hours of the night to trying to tack on interest you don’t owe” the Consumerist website presents “nearly two dozen things the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) forbids collectors from doing.”

This is a great list to review to determine if a debt collector is violating the law so you can then contact us to pursue a lawsuit on your behalf. Remember the debt collector cannot be the lender but must be a different party such as a debt collection firm or a lawyer hired by the lender in order for you to have a claim under federal unfair debt collection laws. Click here to see the list of 23 violations of federal unfair debt collection laws.

Continue reading ›

 

Many of us are familiar with the stereotype of the dishonest used car salesman. They take advantage of those who know little about cars and the fact that we have no way of really knowing the history of the car we are purchasing. Websites such as CarFax makes us feel that these practices can be stopped but leave off a lot of information and can often be incomplete allowing used car salesmen to still find victims for their questionable merchandise.

The most recent scam is the reselling of vehicles that were damaged by Hurricane Sandy in New York. Saltwater is corrosive and can leave cars rusting and dangerous to drive. However, even though many of these cars have been deemed a total loss by insurance companies, they are being dried out and resold in other states.

In most states, cars that have been ruined by flooding are required to indicate that on their titles. However, in some states a car can be re-registered for another title without requiring the flood-brand carry-over. This is known as “title washing” and there’s no shortage of used car dealers who are eager to load up the damaged vehicles and pack them off to states without the required carry-over, such as Colorado and Vermont.

At one recent auction at Manheim, damaged cars had been dried out and scrubbed clean, but many of them showed tell tale signs of damage. For example, on some, the leather seating was puckered, while others had condensation beading their headlights. While this kept away some buyers, others were unhindered and some of the damaged cars went for more than $5,000.
Certain groups that keep a look-out for these issues say that insurance companies sometimes exacerbate the problem by underplaying the damage to a car at auction. In 2005, the State Farm insurance company reached an agreement with the attorneys general of 49 states and the District of Columbia for failing to properly title their cars. In the agreement, State Farm said the company is complying with all of the laws in each state affected by Hurricane Sandy.
However, once a car has been deemed a total loss, insurance companies hire special firms to collect the damaged vehicle, tow it away, spruce it up, and resell it. One such company, Insurance Auto Auctions, employs people to study weather forecasts and predict where the next disaster will be. Before Hurricane Sandy even hit the shore, Insurance Auto Auctions already had 400 tow trucks dispatched to the area and had leased huge holding facilities nearby. One of these holding facilities was an airport on Long Island where the runways were leased for $2.7 million for the year. After the hurricane, about 18,000 cars have packed the tarmac from end to end.

Now, consumers all over the country are being warned about the vehicles they are buying. Officials have warned used car shoppers in Georgia, North Carolina, and Illinois where the secretary of state’s office is scrutinizing new title applications for cars coming in from states affected by the hurricane. In addition to the state issue is the foreign market for these cars, entirely unhindered by U.S. regulations.

Continue reading ›

 

With all the debate raging around healthcare these days, cases like this one must be particularly harmful to the reputation of companies like Hospital Corporation of America (HCA).

It is common practice for profitable hospital chains to buy community hospitals to convert to profit status. These purchases typically include an agreement for the purchaser to spend money to fix up the community hospitals and spend a certain amount on charitable care in the community.

In 2003, HCA purchased twelve hospitals in the Kansas City area from Health Midwest for $1.125 billion. As part of the deal, HCA agreed to spend $300 million in capital improvements to the hospitals in the first two years and an additional $150 million in the three years after that. The hospital chain also agreed to maintain the levels of care which had previously been provided to low-income members of the community for ten years.

The Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City is a nonprofit organization which was created from the proceeds of the sale of the hospital. When they received their first report from HCA in 2004, they allegedly realized the company was already behind in their promised payments.

Of the $300 million that was supposed to have been spent in the first two years, records allegedly indicated that only $50 million had been spent.

HCA’s reports also allegedly indicated that the amount of charitable care provided in their inner-city hospital had fallen while the level of charitable care provided at the more affluent suburban hospital had gone up dramatically.

The foundation repeatedly asked HCA for an explanation but, when they received none, they finally filed a lawsuit against the health care company in 2009.

In the trial, HCA argued that it had met its obligation to spend money on hospitals by building two new hospitals rather than repairing the older facilities. However, Judge John Torrence of Jackson County Circuit Court decided that the agreement had specifically called for improvements to the existing hospitals, not the construction of new hospitals. He therefore ruled that HCA stilled owed $162 million of the $300 million it had agreed to spend between 2003 and 2005. He then named a court-appointed forensic accountant to determine whether HCA had provided the charitable care it had agreed to provide.

In his ruling, the judge said HCA’s own written statements included “differing amounts” of money spent on charitable care. One HCA report said it had provided $48 million in charitable care to the community in 2009 while another report on its Web site claimed that it had provided more than $87 million. The annual report to the foundation, on the other hand, said it had provided $185 million in charitable care that year.

When asked about the widely differing numbers, neither the president of HCA’s Midwest division nor other HCA executives could offer an explanation.

The $162 million will be paid to the foundation, which will use it to create grants to provide care for uninsured and under-insured families in the area. It is unclear whether the spending on improvements for the local hospitals will take place.

But HCA may end up required to cough up even more than the $162 million paid to the foundation, depending of what the court-appointed accountant discovers. Paul Seyferth of Seyferth Blumenthal & Harris, which represents the foundation, speculates that the HCA will “have a tremendously difficult time convincing anybody that they spent what they claim they spent”.

Continue reading ›

Super Lawyers named Chicago and Oak Brook business trial attorney Peter Lubin a Super Lawyer in the Categories of Class Action, Business Litigation and Consumer Rights Litigation. Lubin Austermuehle’s Oak Brook and Chicago business trial lawyers have over thirty years experience litigating complex class action, consumer rights and business and commercial litigation disputes. We handle emergency business lawsuits involving injunctions, and TROS, covenant not to compete, franchise, distributor and dealer wrongful termination and trade secret lawsuits and many different kinds of business disputes involving shareholders, partnerships, closely held businesses and employee breaches of fiduciary duty. We also assist businesses and business owners who are victims of fraud.

online at

It’s amazing how one person’s idea can turn into a patent war between two major companies. In the case of Carter Bryant, an idea for dolls which began with some sketches in 1998 while he was living with his parents in Missouri, later turned into a major battle. Bryant went to work for Mattel Inc., based in El Segundo, California, which claims they began work on designing the dolls with Bryant while he was working for them.

In 2000, MGA Entertainment, based in Van Nuys, California, made a deal with Bryant and, in 2001, the Bratz dolls were released. They were an immediate hit among “tweens” and threatened to de-throne the long-ruling queen of dolls, Mattel’s infamous Barbie. In 2004, Mattel sued Bryant for allegedly working with a competitor while also working with Mattel, and Mattel also sued MGA for alleged copyright infringement. The case against Bryant settled rather quickly but the battle with MGA rages on.

The case went back and forth in the courts. Initially, a jury agreed that Bryant had developed the concept while working with Mattel and thereby awarded the company $100 million.

The decision was overruled on appeal however when the 9th Circuit court overturned that decision and ordered a new trial.

MGA counter-sued, alleging Mattel had engaged in corporate espionage when some of their employees gained access to some of MGA’s designs at a toy fair. Mattel then allegedly used the information gained to try to keep Bratz dolls off the shelves and thereby participated in some illegal practices of their own.

In April 2011, a jury sided with MGA, awarding the entertainment company $3.4 for each of 26 instances they found of Mattel using misappropriated trade secrets, a total of $88.4 million. With fees and damages together, Mattel was ordered to pay $172 million in punitive damages in addition to the judge’s order of $137 million in legal fees and costs to defend against Mattel. This brought the entire award to over $309 million.

According to the U.S. District judge, the copyright case that Mattel was alleging was “stunning in scope and unreasonable in relief it requested.” He also said that the claims endangered free expression and competition.

A federal appeals court however has overturned the $172 million punitive damages ruling. The court decided that, as it is considering Mattel’s copyright infringement lawsuit against MGA, Mattel’s trade-secret thefts are irrelevant to the case. However, the court allowed the award of $137 million to cover legal fees and costs to remain. The case will now return to the courts.

MGA has said that it intends to file a new lawsuit to pursue their trade-theft claims against Mattel.

Continue reading ›

 

And the battle between Apple and Samsung rages on. The patent war, which began in April of 2011, when Apple filed a lawsuit against Samsung in the District Court for the Northern District of California, has most recently been hit by a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The first Office action in this case rejects all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949. This patent is also known as the “Steve Jobs Patent” and is for the rubber-band effect when users scroll through items and other touch-screen specific inputs.

The ruling will likely affect the ongoing international court battle between the two companies, although it is only a preliminary ruling. The pendulum has already swung back and forth between Apple and Samsung. In August, a jury verdict favored Apple, finding that Samsung had violated many of Apple’s patents, including the “Bounce Back Effect”, “On-screen Navigation”, and “Tap to Zoom” among others. The jury asked Samsung to pay $1.05 billion in damages.

Following this, Apple added more Samsung products to their list of patent violations and Samsung filed an appeal on the jury verdict. Samsung’s reasons for the appeal included claims that the jury verdict was not supported by evidence or testimony, and that the judge imposed limits on testimony time and number of witnesses which, allegedly, prevented Samsung from receiving a fair trial.

In October the pendulum swung towards Samsung when the appeals court agreed with the mobile giant that the Nexus did not infringe on any of Apple’s patents. The prior injunction was removed and Apple was asked to post an apology on its website.

This latest decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would appear to keep the battle in Samsung’s favor but it’s probably safe to assume that Apple will not go down so easily. This has been a long and expensive battle for both companies and it doesn’t look as though it will end any time soon.

Continue reading ›

Contact Information