|
|
|
State Supreme Court rules on illegal taxes
Class Action |
2011/08/01 08:56
|
The state Supreme Court made it easier this week for California taxpayers to seek refunds from cities and counties, ruling that a claim of an illegal local tax can be pursued as a class action on behalf of everyone who was overcharged.
The unanimous decision Monday in a Los Angeles case overturned lower-court rulings requiring local taxpayers to file individual refund claims.
In a class action, a representative can win damages that are distributed to an entire group of people affected by the same unlawful action. Class-action status often determines whether a tax can be effectively challenged, said Paul Heidenreich, a lawyer for consumer organizations in the case.
"When only one person can sue at a time, there's little incentive to do so" with small amounts at stake, he said.
The ruling may not affect San Francisco, however. Deputy City Attorney Peter Keith said the city has ordinances that set rules for tax refund claims and prohibit class actions. He said the court allowed class-wide suits only when a city or county has no laws of its own regulating tax refunds.
Francis Gregorek, lawyer for the plaintiff in the Los Angeles case, said a future ruling may be needed to determine whether a city can shield itself from class actions.
Class actions have become a hotly contested legal battleground. The U.S. Supreme Court restricted their use in two California cases earlier this year, refusing to allow as many as 1.5 million women to sue Wal-Mart Stores Inc. as a group over pay and promotion practices, and rejecting class-wide arbitration of a cell phone customer's overcharge claim against AT&T.
Gregorek's client, Estuardo Ardon, sued Los Angeles in 2006, claiming that a city telephone tax was illegal because it was linked to a federal excise tax that had been ruled invalid. Gregorek said the suit seeks millions of dollars in refunds for all phone customers in the city and has led to challenges against similar taxes in other communities.
The case has remained on hold while state courts determined whether Ardon can represent other customers. An appellate court said he could sue only as an individual, citing the state Supreme Court's 1992 ruling that rejected class-action status for a challenge to the state's taxes on vehicles bought by Californians in other states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against JBI, Inc.
Class Action |
2011/08/01 01:56
|
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that a class action lawsuit for violations of the federal securities laws has been filed against JBI, Inc. /quotes/zigman/573088 JBII +5.11% based on allegations that the company issued materially misleading financial statements to the investing public. If you purchased JBI stock during the period from August 28, 2009 to July 20, 2011 you can join the class action and seek to recover your investment losses.
To join the JBI class action, visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com , or call Jonathan Horne, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The case is pending the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.
The Complaint alleges that JBI materially overstated its income in connection with its acquisition of JavaCo, Inc. in 2009. As part of the transaction JBI exchanged 1 million shares of its stock for $9,997,134 worth of media credits. The Complaint alleges that JBI's financial statements were false and misleading because (1) the media credits acquired by the Company in connection with the acquisition of JavaCo were substantially overvalued; (2) that the Company was improperly accounting for acquisitions; (3) that, as such, the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On May 21, 2010, JBI disclosed that its previously issued financial statements for the 2009 fiscal year and third quarter should no longer be relied upon. On July 14, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission advised the Company that it was recommending enforcement action against it and possibly one or more of its former officers in connection with the Company's issuing materially inaccurate financial statements.
News that JBI was required to restate its financial statements and was subject to an SEC enforcement action for violation of the federal securities laws has caused its stock price to drop substantially, damaging investors.
You may participate in the securities class action lawsuit to recover your investment losses. If you purchased JBI stock, please visit the website at http://rosenlegal.com to participate in the class action and to obtain more information. You may also contact Laurence Rosen or Phillip Kim of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at or lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action lawsuit filed over Antero drilling
Class Action |
2011/07/27 09:15
|
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Antero Resources alleging that the company's gas drilling activities in Battlement Mesa threaten the health of residents.
The suit was filed in Denver District Court on behalf of all 5,000 residents of the unincorporated community, which is located next to Parachute in western Garfield County.
An attorney representing the residents, Corey Zurbuch, says the suit argues that drilling exposes the people of Battlement Mesa to hazardous pollution.
Antero representatives, along with others in the industry, have long argued that their activities are not hazardous to the residents of Garfield County, according to the Glenwood Springs Post Independent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge nixes class-action lawsuit against Dow
Class Action |
2011/07/26 09:15
|
A judge in Saginaw says property owners who claim Dow Chemical Co. has spoiled their land cannot sue the company through a class-action lawsuit.
The decision means property owners will have to pursue the company on their own. As many as 2,000 believe they've been harmed by dioxin in the Tittabawassee River floodplain.
The Saginaw News says Judge Leopold Borrello on Monday cited a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited class-action lawsuits against corporations. The judge says anyone claiming harm from Dow pollution must undergo "highly individualized factual inquiries."
Dow attorney Kathleen Lang says the company is pleased with decision.
Dow has acknowledged polluting the Tittabawassee and Saginaw rivers and their floodplains with dioxins for much of the 20th century. Dioxins are chemical byproducts that may cause cancer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calif Supreme Court rules on illegal local taxes
Class Action |
2011/07/26 09:15
|
Ruling in a Los Angeles case, the California Supreme Court has ruled taxpayers can file class-action claims when seeking refunds from cities and counties for illegal local taxes.
Monday's unanimous ruling overturns lower-court rulings requiring taxpayers to file individual refund claims.
In class action claims, an individual can win damages for an entire group of people affected by the same unlawful action.
The San Francisco Chronicle says Estuardo Ardon sued the city of Los Angeles in 2006, claiming a city telephone tax was illegal because it was linked to a federal excise tax that had been ruled invalid. The suit seeks millions of dollars in refunds for all phone customers in the city.
But the case has remained on hold while state courts determined whether Ardon can represent a group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action over L.A. telephone tax may proceed, court rules
Class Action |
2011/07/26 09:14
|
A class action lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles for a refund of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in telephone taxes may proceed as a result of a unanimous ruling Monday by the California Supreme Court.
The ruling, written by Justice Ming W. Chin, upheld the right of citizens to bring class actions against municipal governments for collection of allegedly illegal taxes.
The decision will affect similar lawsuits against Los Angeles County, Long Beach and Chula Vista, lawyers in the case said. The suits claim that the governments have illegally taxed telephone users. The tax appears on phone bills.
The case against L.A. was filed in 2006. The city argued that the taxpayers should have filed individual claims for refunds before bringing a class action and won in the trial court and the appeals court.
As a result of Monday's ruling, "It's possible we will consider bringing actions against other jurisdictions," said Frank Gregorek, who argued the case for the taxpayer. The class that would recover funds would include all residents who paid the taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bank of Hawaii settles overdraft fee class-action lawsuit
Class Action |
2011/07/20 09:35
|
A tentative $9 million settlement with Bank of Hawaii requires the bank to pay each of its customers who had more than one overdraft fee in a day over the last five years.
Bank of Hawaii, the state's second-largest bank, reached the class-action lawsuit settlement in response to claims that the bank improperly charged overdraft fees on debit card transactions, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported Tuesday.
The lawsuit accused the bank of systematically re-ordering debit card transactions from highest dollar amount to lowest dollar amount, a practice that allowed the bank to deplete customers' available funds as quickly as possible while maximizing the number of overdraft fees.
The $9 million will be put in a settlement fund used to refund customers and pay attorneys' fees, administrative and other costs in exchange for a complete release of all claims against the company, the bank said. It's unclear how many Bank of Hawaii customers are eligible for refunds.
Similar lawsuits against American Savings Bank and Central Pacific Bank, the state's third- and fourth-largest banks, also are pending. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
