Category: Class action

Members of Trump National Jupiter Seek Refund of Deposits

Trump – Ritz Carlton Class Action Update

by Seth Lehrman

Club Members Focus Claims against Trump

Class counsel, Seth Lehrman, Brad Edwards and co-counsel, have focused the membership deposit lawsuit against the Trump organization’s Jupiter Golf Club, LLC. This lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class of more than 100 club members who are seeking a refund of millions of dollars of deposits paid to purchase memberships to former Ritz-Carlton Golf Club & Spa — Jupiter.

Continue reading “Members of Trump National Jupiter Seek Refund of Deposits”

Appellate Court Upholds TCPA Violation Ruling Based on Single Phone Call

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) helps protect users against automated services, unsolicited calls, messages or other spam texts that encourage the purchase of goods, services or investments. With the frequency of these unwanted messages on the rise, each case from here on out sets a precedent for what is acceptable and what constitutes a violation of privacy and protected rights.

Continue reading “Appellate Court Upholds TCPA Violation Ruling Based on Single Phone Call”

Knowing Your Rights: Technology Advances Can Lead to Consumer Privacy Violations

In this day and age, advances in technology present opportunities for new ways to violate consumer privacy rights. With the development of new apps and services to make our lives easier, we make ourselves vulnerable to having personal information in the hands of the wrong people.

There are several things to consider when sharing personal information and the access to this information online. Knowing your rights is the best way to protect yourself. Read the terms and conditions properly. Misleading directions can lead to names, phone numbers, addresses, emails and other private details being used in ways unknown to the user. If you are unsure about what you are allowing access to, stop using the service.

Continue reading “Knowing Your Rights: Technology Advances Can Lead to Consumer Privacy Violations”

Class Action Plaintiffs Attorneys Increasingly Join Forces in Face of Law Changes

As the requirements for class action lawsuits become more stringent, top plaintiffs attorneys are joining forces to ensure their cases meet the threshold to move forward.

The “strength in numbers” approach is helping keep certain class actions alive in a challenging climate for class action practitioners, according to a new report from Law360. The report cites the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings in recent years as the impetus for plaintiffs attorneys from different firms to team up.  To accommodate the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act, initial complaints are often up to 100 pages long, compared with the typical 10-to-30-page complaint that would be common during the 1990s.

Continue reading “Class Action Plaintiffs Attorneys Increasingly Join Forces in Face of Law Changes”

Class Action Ruling Sheds Light on Employer Fair Credit Reporting Act Obligations

The employment process frequently includes background checks for applicants. Even after being hired, employers may still run background checks on your behalf. If you find yourself in either of these situations, there are some things you should know to protect your legal rights.

Before you sign anything, make sure you have a clear understanding of what you are putting your name on. The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act states that employers must disclose that they are attempting to obtain consumer reports on applicants. This goes for current employees as well.

The FCRA requires that the disclosure be a “clear and conspicuous written disclosure.” The written disclosure form must “solely” contain the disclosure required by the FCRA. The Ninth Circuit declared “solely” to be an important keyword to take note of when it comes to signing disclosures. In the case of Syed (applicant) v. M-I, LLC (employer), the disclosure form addressed multiple issues, not just the FCRA disclosure. As a result, the Court found that the disclosure form failed to satisfy the FCRA’s requirements. Disclosure forms that are not clear and conspicuous violate the FCRA.  Employees and job applicants who receive unclear disclosures may pursue claims to protect their rights under the FCRA.

EP partner Seth Lehrman litigates class actions in state and federal courts in Florida, California and across the United States, including FCRA claims on behalf of consumers. He can be reached at [email protected] or at 1-800-400-1098 during business hours on Eastern Standard Time.

EP Partner Seth Lehrman Raises More than $300,000 in Cy Pres Donations for Legal Aid Programs

EP partner Seth Lehrman and his co-counsel have generated more than $300,000 in cy pres awards for Legal Aid programs in South Florida through their successful efforts in class action cases.  The cy pres monies were allocated to Legal Aid following the settlement of TCPA and other consumer class action cases. The TCPA is a federal statute that provides important privacy rights to individuals, including the right to be free from unwanted cell phone calls, unsolicited text message advertisements and unwanted fax advertisements.

“At a time when programs and services that reflect the bedrock of American values flirt with disaster, it is comforting to know that all is not lost within the halls of justice,” said Dorian Lange, Director of Development for both Legal Aid programs in Broward.  She added that Seth Lehrman and his co-counsel Scott Owens “have together worked hard, alongside a few others in our Legal community, to ensure Legal Aid programs are top of mind as logical and deserving designees for cy pres funds. They have turned the tide for us repeatedly over the last 3 years, directing in excess of $325,000. This enables us to continue to provide critical legal remedy to stabilize families and communities and close the justice gap for those in dire need. We are immensely grateful.”

EP attorney Seth Lehrman litigates class actions in state and federal courts in Florida, California and across the United States. He represents consumers and businesses in class action and whistleblower cases to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable. He can be reached at 1-800-400-1098 during business hours on Eastern Standard Time.

EP Partners Win $5.7 Million Judgment in Trump Class Action Case

EP trial attorneys Brad Edwards, Seth Lehrman and their co-counsel Mark Fistos won a $5.7 million judgment on behalf of the plaintiffs in a federal class action case against the Trump Organization’s Trump National Golf Club Jupiter on February 1, 2017. The attorneys had tried the case on behalf of 65 class members, including three class representatives. U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra heard the case and entered the judgment on behalf of the class of club members.

The trial focused on whether Trump breached membership agreements by failing to refund monies to the club member class.  Plaintiffs claimed that Trump recalled their memberships by refusing them access to the club facilities. Once their memberships were recalled, Trump was required to refund deposits within thirty days. However, Trump failed to pay refunds, and refused the club members access to the facilities despite continuing to charge them dues.

Edwards and Lehrman were featured in many media stories about the judgment. National media outlets covering the ruling included the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CNN, ESPN, Law360, NBC News, the New York Times and many others.

Listen to Brad Edwards discuss the judgment with NPR’s Greg Allen here.

The attorneys also garnered coverage in a variety of South Florida media outlets, including the Daily Business Review, Palm Beach Post, South Florida Business Journal, Sun Sentinel, The Real Deal and WPTV.

Farmer Jaffe appreciates the commitment and resolve of its clients who stood up for their rights and the rights of class members and pursued the case through trial.

EP attorneys litigate class actions in state and federal courts. They represent consumers and businesses in class action and whistleblower cases to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable. The firm class action and trial teams have significant experience winning class certification in contested cases and successfully handling complex jury trials and bench trials. The attorneys can be reached at 1-800-400-1098 during business hours on Eastern Standard Time.

Edwards Pottinger’s Matt Weissing Garners Media Coverage for Hilton Fort Lauderdale Class Action Case

Hilton Fort LauderdaleEdwards Pottinger was featured in several news articles about the law firm obtaining class certification in a federal class action claim involving the condominium-hotel property that is being operated as the Hilton Fort Lauderdale Beach Resort. Weissing is serving as lead counsel in the case.

On Thursday, December 8, 2016, U.S. District Judge James Cohn certified the class action in Dear v. Q Club. Plaintiff Gary Dear, on behalf of himself and the other condominium unit owners, has sued the hotel unit owner, Q Club Hotel, LLC. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant breached the condominium declaration by charging the unit owners for shared costs that are not shared costs as defined by the declaration.

The case is scheduled to begin trial at 9 a.m. on May 22, 2017.

Weissing spoke with numerous media outlets about the case, which was covered by the Sun Sentinel, Daily Business Review and Law360 – among other publications.

The class certification “empowers this group of owners to act in concert for all of their mutual best interests,” Weissing told the Sun Sentinel.

Edwards Pottinger’s Matt Weissing is a Board Certified Civil Trial attorney who concentrates his practice on Class Actions, Personal Injury and Wrongful Death matters. His experience includes handling cases involving motorcycle, automobile, boating and helicopter crashes. He also handles cases involving toxic chemical exposure and misfilled prescriptions, as well as premises liability, failure to provide security and excessive force/false arrest.

Supreme Court’s Ruling in Spokeo Case Not Red Light for Consumer Class Claims

Spokeo-OfficesClass action practitioners and consumer rights watchdogs were anxiously anticipating last month’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins case. The court’s 6-2 vote to vacate the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and remand the case to determine whether plaintiff Thomas Robins indeed met the legal threshold for actual injury not surprisingly elicited strong reactions on whether the decision will have a chilling effect on future consumer class cases.

There is no doubt that the Spokeo ruling is a significant one that impacts many consumer class cases. In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court raised the bar for establishing injury. Robins brought the class action against Spokeo in 2010, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). He claimed that Spokeo violated the FCRA by failing to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of “information about his education history, current employment, wealth level and marital status published on the Spokeo website.  In addition, he alleged that the publication of this inaccurate information violated the FCRA which entitled him to recover statutory damages.

The majority of the Supreme Court ruled that constitutional standing requires a “concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation”.  In other words, a claimant does not have standing – court access — to pursue a procedural violation of a statute that does not cause a concrete injury.  The Supreme Court found that the appellate court’s analysis was not complete.  Accordingly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will now review the case to determine if Robins’ claims are concrete and may go forward.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, attorneys and claimants will likely exercise scrutiny in determining whether claims satisfy the standing requirements articulated by Spokeo. But the ruling is not a red light for consumer class actions. Several post-Spokeo rulings have found that plaintiffs’ claims sufficiently alleged concrete injury, satisfied standing requirements and may go forward.  Accordingly, we expect consumers to have continued access to the courts, to pursue claims under a host of federal consumer protection statutes like the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and the FCRA.

EP partner Seth Lehrman litigates class actions in state and federal courts in Florida, California and across the United States. He represents consumers and businesses in class action and whistleblower cases to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable. He can be reached at [email protected] or at (954) 524-2820 during business hours on Eastern Standard Time.

Unwanted Cell Phone Calls Cost Time Warner Cable $229 500

  • Federal Law Prohibits Unwanted Calls to Cell Phones

Most people find unwanted cell phone calls and texts annoying. Luckily, a federal law, the TCPA, prohibits unwanted calls from being placed to cell phones. Time Warner Cable Inc. was ordered to pay a consumer $229,500 for placing 153 automated calls in less than a year. Consumers frequently receive the type of unwanted calls that the consumer in this case received.

Continue reading “Unwanted Cell Phone Calls Cost Time Warner Cable $229 500”