Today's Date: Add To Favorites
Lawyer defends Nevada truck firm in Amtrak crash
Class Action | 2011/07/11 00:53
A lawyer for the Nevada trucking company whose tractor-trailer slammed into an Amtrak train, killing six people, defended the company’s safety record Thursday and said it was not at fault in two previous accidents cited in state safety records.

John Davis Trucking Co. has been cooperating with local, state and federal investigators and is as anxious as anyone to learn why the driver who died in the June 24 crash ignored flashing lights and crossing gates before skidding the length of a football field into the side of the train, Steven Jaffe of Las Vegas said.

But he said four negligence lawsuits filed against the Battle Mountain company — combined with the ongoing investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board — has kept the brothers who own the family-run business from sharing information that would help shed more light on the tragedy.

“There’s a lot more than meets the eye,” Jaffe told The Associated Press. “I think when it all comes down to it, the public is going to see a very different John Davis Trucking than was originally put out there.

“I believe the evidence will show their conduct was defensible in all of this,” he said. “I have a great deal of trust in the legal system, and if some day we go in front of a jury, I’m confident it will give us the chance to say that we did everything right.”

Federal records reviewed by the AP show the state Department of Public Safety cited the company for 16 vehicle maintenance violations over the past two years and noted it had been involved in two crashes during that period, including one in February 2010 that injured a person in Washoe County.





Google Wi-Fi snooping lawsuits can proceed
Class Action | 2011/07/10 00:52
A federal judge has refused Google's plea to dismiss several class-action lawsuits accusing the Internet search giant of illegally collecting online information from unencrypted wireless networks while working on its "Street View" map feature.

Google has acknowledged that its fleet of specialized "Street View" vehicles inadvertently gathered about 600 gigabytes of Wi-Fi data in more than 30 countries while photographing neighborhoods.

The Mountain View, Calif.-based company apologized and maintains it never used the data. It also argues it did nothing illegal because the Wi-Fi data was publicly available like radio transmissions.






Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action Against Biomimetic Therapeutics
Class Action | 2011/07/07 10:00

Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. ("BMTI" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. The class action in the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased BMTI securities from October 14, 2009 through May 11, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

BMTI's product, Augment(TM) Bone Graft ("Augment"), is a fully synthetic, off-the-shelf bone growth factor product for the treatment of bone defects and injuries. The Company's primary focus is obtaining market approval for Augment, and preparing for the anticipated commercial launch of Augment in the United States, the European Union and Australia.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants conditioned investors to believe that FDA approval of Augment would be forthcoming through a host of materially false and misleading statements regarding the status of Augment's ongoing clinical studies, and the safety and efficacy of the Company's product.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts regarding: (a) the Company's business, operations, management, future business prospects and the intrinsic value of BMTI's common stock; (b) the safety and efficacy of Augment and its prospects for FDA approval; and (c) the woeful inadequacies of Augment's clinical trials. As a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 10, 2011, the FDA published briefing documents on Augment that were critical of Augment's clinical trial, stating the "FDA still has clinical concerns with the safety and overall risk/benefit of the device at this time, primarily due to the unanswered question of safety in regards to the potential for cancer formation versus an unproven benefit in the current standard for care."

On this news, BMTI's stock price plummeted approximately $4.73 or over 35% and closed at $8.66 on unusually heavy volume.

On May 13, 2011, BMTI disclosed that the FDA Panel voted by a narrow margin of 10-8 in favor of Augment's efficacy, making it highly unlikely that the device will receive FDA approval without requiring additional trials, substantially delaying the launch of the product.

As a result of the news regarding the narrow Panel vote, BMTI shares declined nearly 12% or $1.095 and closed at $8.105.

If you are a shareholder who purchased BMTI securities during the Class Period, you have until September 6, 2011 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.



Toyota class action suit to start with Utah case
Class Action | 2011/06/24 22:26
The first lawsuit to go to trial in a massive class action against Toyota Motor Corp. over acceleration problems that led the company to recall 14 million cars will involve a crash that killed two people in western Utah, a federal judge said Friday.

U.S. District Judge James Selna told attorneys the case of 38-year-old Charlene Jones Lloyd and 66-year-old Paul Van Alfen, whose Toyota Camry slammed into a wall in Utah in 2010, is scheduled to go to trial in February 2013.

The case - Van Alfen v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. - will be the first of several bellwether lawsuits, intended to determine how the rest of the litigation will proceed.

Selna wrote in a tentative order that he hoped the selection would "markedly advance these proceedings."

"The Court believes that selection of a personal injury/wrongful death case is most likely the type of case to meet that goal," Selna said.

Toyota said it welcomes the Utah case as the first suit to reach court.

"We are pleased that the initial bellwether will address plaintiffs' central allegation of an unnamed, unproven defect in Toyota vehicles, as every claim in the multi-district litigation rests upon this pivotal technical issue," the company said in a statement.

Toyota has previously argued the plaintiffs have been unable to prove that a design defect in its electronic throttle control system is responsible for vehicles surging unexpectedly. It has instead blamed driver error, faulty floor mats and sticky accelerator pedals.



Pa. appeals court upholds $188M Wal-Mart verdict
Class Action | 2011/06/23 22:25
A $188 million class-action verdict against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Sam's Club over payment to employees for rest breaks and off-the-clock work was upheld Friday by a Pennsylvania appeals court.

A three-judge Superior Court panel said there was sufficient evidence at trial to conclude there had been a breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violations of state labor laws.

The judges also ruled in a 211-page opinion that the presiding Philadelphia judge erred in determining some of the plaintiffs' legal fees, and sent that part of the case back for recalculation.

The 2006 trial, which lasted 32 days, resulted in a finding that Wal-Mart did not pay employees for all the work they performed and did not let them take their paid, mandatory rest breaks, the judges wrote. The court awarded $46 million in attorneys' fees.

Wal-Mart spokesman Greg Rossiter said the retail giant believes the court decision was wrong in a number of respects and looks forward to additional review in the courts.





Judge to hear $3.4B Indian settlement case
Class Action | 2011/06/20 00:18
A hearing is planned Monday on the fairness of a $3.4 billion settlement reached in a lawsuit that claimed the government mismanaged the accounts of hundreds of thousands of American Indian landowners.

The hearing in Washington, D.C., comes six months after lawmakers approved the settlement and a federal judge granted preliminary approval of the deal in December. The lead plaintiff in the 15-year-old class-action lawsuit is Elouise Cobell of Browning, Mont., a member of Montana's Blackfeet Tribe.

The lawsuit argues the Interior Department mishandled billions of dollars in royalties belonging to Indian account holders.

Potential beneficiaries were notified of the settlement and had until April 20 to opt out of the class-action lawsuit and start their own, or submit objections to the settlement.

The Billings Gazette reported that 92 objections were filed and 19 people have asked to speak at the hearing on Monday before U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan.

Some objections to the settlement concern the $223 million, plus $1.3 million in expenses, requested by attorneys. The attorneys in February said that Instead of being paid up to $99.9 million, as initially agreed, they deserved at least $224 million for their work on the case since 1996.



US court lets class action against Bayer proceed
Class Action | 2011/06/20 00:17

The Supreme Court will let two West Virginia residents revive a lawsuit against Bayer AG over its anti-cholesterol drug Baycol, which was withdrawn from the market in 2001 after reports of a severe and sometimes fatal muscle disorder.

The high court on Thursday unanimously agreed to let Kevin Smith and Shirley Sperlazza's class-action lawsuit against Bayer go forward.

The 8th U.S. Court of Appeals had thrown out their lawsuit out after a federal judge overseeing multistate litigation against Bayer refused to let other West Virginians file a similar class-action lawsuit against the corporation.

The high court said that decision was incorrect.




[PREV] [1] ..[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36].. [66] [NEXT]
All
Class Action
Bankruptcy
Biotech
Breaking Legal News
Business
Corporate Governance
Court Watch
Criminal Law
Health Care
Human Rights
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Law Center
Law Promo News
Legal Business
Legal Marketing
Litigation
Medical Malpractice
Mergers & Acquisitions
Political and Legal
Politics
Practice Focuses
Securities
Elite Lawyers
Tax
Featured Law Firms
Tort Reform
Venture Business News
World Business News
Law Firm News
Attorneys in the News
Events and Seminars
Environmental
Legal Careers News
Patent Law
Consumer Rights
International
Legal Spotlight
Current Cases
State Class Actions
Federal Class Actions
US announces massive arms sa..
Trump bans travel from 5 mor..
Do Kwon sentenced to 15 year..
Top EU official warns the US..
Former Honduras President He..
Supreme Court meets to weigh..
Court official dismisses Jus..
S. Carolina lawmakers look a..
Longest government shutdown ..
Dominican appeals court to h..
California voters take up Pr..
Kimberly-Clark buying Tyleno..
Man pleads not guilty to spa..
US and Australia sign critic..
Trump threatens to pull supp..


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.
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
East Greenwich Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com/about
  Law Firm Directory
 
 
 
© ClassActionTimes.com. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Class Action Times as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Affordable Law Firm Web Design