An Orthodox Jewish woman, Rorie Weisberg, has sued Lancome for failing to live up to the promises made in the marketing of its “24-hour makeup,” Teint Idole Ultra 24H.
Teint Idole Ultra 24H claims it can provide “lasting perfection” for a fully day and night. Rorie Weisberg of Monsey, New York claims Lancome’s product did not deliver the promised results which prevented her from looking good and staying holy on the Sabbath.
As an Orthodox Jewish woman, Rorie asserts she relied on Lancome’s representations because she “abides by Jewish law by not applying makeup from sundown on Friday until nighttime on Saturday.” Rorie was hopeful that the makeup would last the entire duration of the Sabbath. The appeal of the long-term wear “was central to plaintiff’s purchase decision, as a long-lasting makeup assists with her dual objections of compliance with religious law and enhancement to her natural appearance.” Rorie was disappointed when the makeup “faded significantly” overnight especially since the make-up was priced at $45.00 for a one-ounce bottle.
Rorie filed a claim in Manhattan federal court accusing Lancome of violating New York business law through “deceptive acts and practices.” Rorie seeks unspecified damages from Lancome and would like the company to create a “corrective advertising campaign.”
L’Oreal spokesperson, Rebecca Caruso, stated “Lancome strongly believes that this lawsuit has no merit and stands proudly behind our products. We will strenuously contest these allegations in court. Consistent with our practice and policy, however, as this matter is currently in litigation, we cannot comment further.
If you or someone you love has purchased a product that did not perform as promised, please contact Khorrami, LLP for a private consultation.
GNC customer Michael Lerman has filed suit in California federal court, alleging GNC misrepresented the benefits of its Triflex dietary supplements. The advertisements, which are both online and on the product’s packaging, suggest that the supplement helps to “regenerate cartilage and lubricate joints thus supporting joint health integrity and function,” and “protect joints from wear and tear.”
According to the complaint, “the Triflex products do not promote flexibility or mobility, relieve joint discomfort, or cushion joints.” In fact, the complaint alleges that “clinical studies have proven that the primary active ingredients in the Triflex products, glucosamine and chondroitin, are ineffective, taken alone or in combination with the other ingredients in the products, with regard to the purported joint health benefits represented on the products’ packaging and labeling.”
Lerman also alleges that GNC has engaged in deception and omission in failing to disclose studies demonstrating that the active ingredients in the Triflex supplement are ineffective.
The complaint, which was filed on April 18, 2013, seeks to represent all California residents who purchased the Triflex products for personal use within the last four years.
If you or someone you know has purchased a product based upon false statements in the product’s advertisements, you may be entitled to relief. Please call Khorrami, LLP for a confidential consultation.
A class action lawsuit has been filed in U.S. Federal Court by two “Production Appraisers” in JPMorgan Chase’s commercial lending division. The suit is seeking millions of dollars in unpaid overtime wages based on the appraisers being misclassified as exempt employees. The suit also alleges other violations of California and federal law.
According to the suit, Chase Production Appraisers were involved with the valuation of value commercial and multi-unit residential properties, which aided Chase in determining whether it would agree to loan or refinance requests made by the property owners.
The lawsuit was filed by two Long Beach, California residents, Kenneth Lee and Mark Thompson, who worked as Production Appraisers. According to Lee and Thompson, Production Appraisers have been deprived of overtime pay, meal and rest periods, itemized wage statements, and other reimbursements required by California law, because they were inaccurately characterized as exempt employees when they should have been classified as non-exempt employees. Lee and Thompson claim that Chase established various billing goals for appraisers, requiring working up to 70 hours a week in order to have a chance to make the goals. According to the suit, because the appraisers had to follow specific and detailed standards when filling out their appraisals, subject to reviews, the position did not qualify as “exempt.” Additionally, the Plaintiffs assert that appraisers had no authority to make administrative decisions or to deviate from the pre-approved appraisal criteria or formulas. The suit could represent the interests of about 150 appraisers who were or are misclassified as exempt employees.
According to federal law, employers must pay employees one and a half times their hourly wage for all hours worked after 40 per week. There are exceptions for various professions and positions. California law also requires overtime payments to employees of one and one half times their hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 in a week. California also requires that employees receive one and a half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked over eight hours in a workday. In addition, California also requires employees receive double their pay for all hours worked in excess of 12 hours in any workday.
California overtime law, like federal overtime law, is subject to various exceptions. Particularly, California provides exemptions from overtime requirements for some Executive, Administrative, and Professional employees.
If you or someone you know has not received overtime that they were entitled to, please contact Khorrami, LLP for a confidential consultation.
Anheuser-Busch, manufacturer of popular American beers, is accused of watering down its Budweiser, Bud Ice, Bud Light Platinum, Michelob, Michelob Ultra, Hurricane High Gravity Lager, King Cobra, Busch Ice, Natural Ice, Natural Light, and Bud Light Lime, causing their alcohol levels to fall “well below” the advertised 5% volume, in an attempt to increase profits.
James Clark, a former Director of Operations and Support for Anheuser-Busch, blew the whistle on his former employer in February, 2013 by providing evidence of the watering-down process to attorneys for a class-action lawsuit based on the company’s false advertising. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that, “Because water is cheaper than alcohol, AB adds extra water to its finished products to produce malt beverages that consistently have lower alcohol than the percentage displayed on its labels. By doing so, AB is able to produce a significantly higher number of units of beer from the same starting batch of ingredients.”
The lead attorney on the class-action suit, Josh Boxer, told the Associated Press that employees from 13 different breweries eventually came forward with more supporting evidence. Some of the employees came from high-level positions within the plants. Boxer explained, “Our information comes from former employees at Anheuser-Busch, who have informed us that as a matter of corporate practice, all of their products mentioned (in the lawsuit) are watered down. It’s a simple cost-saving measure, and it’s very significant.”
Lawsuits have been filed in San Francisco, Cleveland, Philidelphia, and New Jersey. One of the California plaintiffs, Nina Giampaoli of Sonoma County, said she has bought a six-pack of Budweiser every week for the past four years. She and other California plaintiffs are seeking $5 million in damages and are asking the court to require the company to promote a corrective advertising campaign.
Anheuser-Busch has since retaliated against Clark with a lawsuit of their own, claiming that he “improperly used and misrepresented our confidential information to instigate these lawsuits, all for his personal gain.”
If you or anyone you know has suffered as a result of false advertising, please contact Khorrami, LLP for a free and private consultation.
A California appeals court recently overturned a trial court decision to dismiss a personal injury lawsuit against United Airlines (“United”) for failure to provide a wheelchair to a disabled person. A person with a disability who is not properly accommodated during their time in an airport is quite likely to have those disabilities aggravated in some way or have some new injury result.
San Francisco native and plaintiff Michelle Gilstrap suffers from oseoarthiritis which makes it difficult for her to walk or stand for extended periods of time. In 2008 and 2009, Gilstrap claimed that United refused to provide her with a wheel chair and questioned the true nature of her disability. According to the complaint, at one point, a United agent from whom she asked for assistance, unilaterally revoked her ticket and booked her for a later flight after telling her that is what she got for refusing to stand in line.
Gilstrap sued for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of duty of a common carrier, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Gilstrap did not allege violations of the Air Carrier Access Act but claimed that the Act was relevant to establishing her negligence claim.
Of major issue to the appeals court was whether the remedies in the Air Carrier Access Act were exclusive and thus precluded other kinds of causes of action, such as those lying in tort. The court found that the remedies were not exclusive and allowed the case to proceed.
Consequently, the effect is to give plaintiffs a real opportunity to redress violations of the federal regulation that aggravated and/or caused additional injuries.
If you feel that you or someone you know have been denied proper accommodation for a disability, please contact Khorrami, LLP for a private consultation.
According to a new lawsuit, Nintendo’s new Wii U controllers are faulty because they rattle noisily and distract players.
In the lawsuit, plaintiff Joubin Rahimi alleges that, after purchasing the new Wii U system in November, he noticed a rattling sound coming from the controller. According to the lawsuit, it sounded like a loose piece was rattling around inside the controller. Rahimi returned the system twice, but each time the new Wii controller still made the same rattling sound.
Rahimi contacted Nintendo about the multiple noisy Wii U controllers. He was told that the company was aware of the problem. The suit states that Rahimi was advised by Nintendo to hold down all the buttons on the game pad controller at the same time that the rattling would be diminished. According to Rahimi, it is not possible to hold down all the buttons on the controller and play a game at the same time.
The lawsuit is seeking an injunction and damages for purchasers of the Nintendo Will U gaming system that have experienced the same problem with their controllers.
Rahimi’s suit has been sent to arbitration by a federal Judge in California. Nintendo claims that Rahimi clicked the “agree” button on the Wii U startup screen. By clicking agree, Nintendo says, he accepted end user license agreement which requires any dispute over the game console to be settled through arbitration. Rahimi claims he should not be held to the user agreement because he returned the system twice. He states the he deserves a jury trial regarding the applicability of the arbitration agreement. The Judge has ruled that the issue is best resolved by an arbiter interpreting the license agreement’s terms.
If you or a loved one has purchased a product you believe to be defective, please contact Khorrami, LLP for a confidential evaluation of your rights.
New lawsuits have been filed against Stryker Orthopedics, alleging damages and injuries from a Rejuvenate hip implant. The Plaintiff, a Tennessee man, claims he suffered injuries, including deep pocket swelling, fluid build-up, and fretting and corrosion of the join, which required corrective and ongoing medical treatments, rehabilitation, and medicine. He seeks damages in excess of $75,000 to cover necessary medical expenses and pain and suffering.
The new suit against Stryker is not a surprise. In April 2012, Stryker Orthopedics issued an urgent safety notice that its Rejuvenate hip implants were causing heavy metal contamination in individuals that had received the implants. The safety notice warned that heavy metals released in the body from the devices could cause tissue death, metallosis, and the formation of psuedotumors. In July 2012, Stryker issued a recall of the Rejuvenate hip implants.
If you or someone you know has suffered such an injury as a result of a defective medical device or procedure, please contact the attorneys of Khorrami, LLP for a free confidential consultation regarding your potential legal claims.
David Emanuel, a Lakers fan and ticket holder, recently filed a text spam class action lawsuit alleging that the Lakers violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending him unsolicited text messages. The TCPA restricts the use of telemarketing and the use of automated telephone systems. The TCPA also applies to limit the use of telemarketing through text messages.
Emanuel claims that in October 2012, he responded to an advertisement at a Lakers game which encouraged fans to send a text message if they wanted a personal message to appear on the big screen at the Staples Center. Emanuel sent a text and immediately received a text response from the Lakers thanking him for his text and encouraging him to send more. Emanuel responded with a “STOP” text but immediately received another text from the team.
In March 2013, legal counsel for the Lakers claimed they were framed and that Emanuel only filed TCPA allegations after consulting with attorneys. The Lakers allege that Emanuel’s attorneys goaded him into initiating a text to the Lakers, but Emanuel vehemently denies that allegation. In fact, Emanuel says that he only reached out for legal representation after the Lakers texted him. The Lakers brought a motion to dismiss the case, but it was denied.
If you’ve received unsolicited texts or automated messages from a company or business, you might have a TCPA legal claim, contact Khorrami, LLP for a free and confidential consultation.
A new study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation has concluded that Pradaxa lowers the body’s resistance to a virus and can increase the risk for myocarditis in children and young adults. In the recent study involving laboratory mice, scientists at the University of North Carolina (UNC) found Pradaxa may actually interfere with certain processes in the body. Pradaxa inhibits thrombin, which is the body’s primary clotting agent, which interfere with the immune system.
Pradaxa does not have a reputation for being the safest drug on the market. Several lawsuits have been filed alleging that Pradaxa, a drug used to risk the risk of stroke and blood clots in people who have atrial fibrillation, caused them to bleed internally and suffer from a heart attacks or death.
“Our findings show that blocking thrombin reduces the innate immune response to viral information,” says Nigel Mackman, director of the UNC McAllister Heart Institute, who helped conduct the study. “The use of the new generation of blood thinners might increase the risk and severity of flu and myocarditis.”
The findings in the new study do not bode well for Pradaxa. Since drug’s entry into the market in late 2010, Pradaxa has been heavily criticized for its side effects.
If you or someone you love has suffered an injury caused by Pradaxa, please contact Khorrami, LLP for a private consultation.
Target has issued a voluntary recall for 148,700 Giada De Laurentiis-branded ceramic lasagna pans. The recall was initiated after Target learned the pan can break during use and cause cuts and lacerations to consumers.
The recalled Giada De Laurentiis lasagna pans are cream colored and 9×13 inches in size. The pans were sold individually and also as part of a six-piece cooking set. The recalled product was manufactured in China and sold nationwide at Target stores and target.com from January 2009 through October 2012.
Target has received 39 reports of the pans breaking or cracking during normal use. Cuts and lacerations caused by sharp edges were reported in six of those incidents. Consumers who have purchased the recalled pans are advised to immediately stop using them and return them to any Target store for a full refund.
If you purchased a product and suspect it poses serious health and safety risks, contact Khorrami, LLP for a confidential consultation.