File Some Claims, Get Up To $62.50
- Thread starter 0R0
- Start date
it depends which one he got in searching the thread guess there's 2 the one I filed was for mini wheats and theres one for rice krispies
Props:
Nuttkase
Judge Dismisses Chobani Greek Yogurt Labeling Class Action Lawsuit
Judge Dismisses Chobani Greek Yogurt Labeling Class Action Lawsuit
A California federal judge has dismissed a food labeling class action lawsuit against Chobani Inc., just two months after she vacated a previous decision dismissing only part of the case.
Plaintiffs Katie Kane, Arianna Rosales and Darla Booth initially filed the Chobani yogurt class action lawsuit in May 2012, alleging that Chobani deceptively listed the ingredients on its yogurt product labels. The plaintiffs claimed that the Chobani Greek Yogurt labels contain false and misleading claims about the yogurt’s nutritional benefits by claiming that the products contain “All Natural Ingredients,” “No artificial flavors” and “evaporated cane juice.” In reality, they argued, the products contain artificial ingredients, coloring, flavoring and chemical preservatives.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh granted Chobani’s motion to reconsider the previous ruling and its motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ claims. On July 12, Judge Koh dismissed some of the plaintiffs’ claims, but she allowed the claim that Chobani deceived consumers by listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient on the label to disguise the fact that the yogurt contained sugar.
Two weeks later, during a hearing on a motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ counsel, the plaintiffs agreed that Chobani should be able to move for reconsideration of Judge Koh’s ruling on the evaporated cane juice allegations. Judge Koh subsequently allowed Chobani to make a bid for reconsideration of the evaporated cane juice charges. She also allowed the plaintiffs to file a motion requesting leave to file their own bid for reconsideration, but she rejected their motion on August 14, finding that there was no basis for her to reconsider her application of California’s consumer protection law.
In her September 19 order, Judge Koh found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring evaporated cane juice claims. While they had initially alleged that the term “evaporated cane juice” could be viewed as healthier than refined sugars, they disavowed that theory during the hearing at the end of July when they argued that they believed evaporated cane juice to be “some type of ingredient that was healthier than sugar.”
“For one thing, it is just a restatement of the theory that plaintiffs believed the yogurts contained only ‘natural sugars from milk and fruit,’ which the court has already concluded is not plausible,” Judge Koh said in her decision to dismiss the Chobani yogurt class action lawsuit. “In addition, this ‘some type of healthier ingredient’ theory of reliance does not appear in the second amended complaint.”
Judge Koh again dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims that the Chobani yogurt labels misled consumers into believing that the products did not contain added sugar, finding that Chobani had included juice concentrate on the label. According to Judge Koh, the plaintiffs’ arguments failed because they claimed they had never viewed the no added sugar statements on the Chobani website.
Judge Koh allowed the plaintiffs to re-plead their evaporated cane juice, “all natural” and added sugar allegations. However, the unjust enrichment and warranty claims cannot be re-pled because California law does not recognize unjust enrichment claims and the warranty laws cited in the class action lawsuit do not cover food products that cost less than $5.
The plaintiffs are represented by Darren Brown of Provost Umphfrey Law Firm LLP and Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates.
The Chobani Greek Yogurt Class Action Lawsuit is Kane et al. v. Chobani Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-02425, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Judge Dismisses Chobani Greek Yogurt Labeling Class Action Lawsuit
A California federal judge has dismissed a food labeling class action lawsuit against Chobani Inc., just two months after she vacated a previous decision dismissing only part of the case.
Plaintiffs Katie Kane, Arianna Rosales and Darla Booth initially filed the Chobani yogurt class action lawsuit in May 2012, alleging that Chobani deceptively listed the ingredients on its yogurt product labels. The plaintiffs claimed that the Chobani Greek Yogurt labels contain false and misleading claims about the yogurt’s nutritional benefits by claiming that the products contain “All Natural Ingredients,” “No artificial flavors” and “evaporated cane juice.” In reality, they argued, the products contain artificial ingredients, coloring, flavoring and chemical preservatives.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh granted Chobani’s motion to reconsider the previous ruling and its motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ claims. On July 12, Judge Koh dismissed some of the plaintiffs’ claims, but she allowed the claim that Chobani deceived consumers by listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient on the label to disguise the fact that the yogurt contained sugar.
Two weeks later, during a hearing on a motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ counsel, the plaintiffs agreed that Chobani should be able to move for reconsideration of Judge Koh’s ruling on the evaporated cane juice allegations. Judge Koh subsequently allowed Chobani to make a bid for reconsideration of the evaporated cane juice charges. She also allowed the plaintiffs to file a motion requesting leave to file their own bid for reconsideration, but she rejected their motion on August 14, finding that there was no basis for her to reconsider her application of California’s consumer protection law.
In her September 19 order, Judge Koh found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring evaporated cane juice claims. While they had initially alleged that the term “evaporated cane juice” could be viewed as healthier than refined sugars, they disavowed that theory during the hearing at the end of July when they argued that they believed evaporated cane juice to be “some type of ingredient that was healthier than sugar.”
“For one thing, it is just a restatement of the theory that plaintiffs believed the yogurts contained only ‘natural sugars from milk and fruit,’ which the court has already concluded is not plausible,” Judge Koh said in her decision to dismiss the Chobani yogurt class action lawsuit. “In addition, this ‘some type of healthier ingredient’ theory of reliance does not appear in the second amended complaint.”
Judge Koh again dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims that the Chobani yogurt labels misled consumers into believing that the products did not contain added sugar, finding that Chobani had included juice concentrate on the label. According to Judge Koh, the plaintiffs’ arguments failed because they claimed they had never viewed the no added sugar statements on the Chobani website.
Judge Koh allowed the plaintiffs to re-plead their evaporated cane juice, “all natural” and added sugar allegations. However, the unjust enrichment and warranty claims cannot be re-pled because California law does not recognize unjust enrichment claims and the warranty laws cited in the class action lawsuit do not cover food products that cost less than $5.
The plaintiffs are represented by Darren Brown of Provost Umphfrey Law Firm LLP and Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates.
The Chobani Greek Yogurt Class Action Lawsuit is Kane et al. v. Chobani Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-02425, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Louis Vuitton Class Action Settlement Gets Tentative OK
http://www.lvnasettlement.com/
Details on how to file a claim for the Louis Vuitton class action settlement have finally arrived. If you used a credit card to make a purchase from a California Louis Vuitton retail store between 2010 and 2013, you may be eligible to claim a free Merchandise Certificate from the class action settlement.
The proposed Louis Vuitton settlement will resolve a 2011 class action lawsuit (Morey v. Louis Vuitton North America) accusing Louis Vuitton of violating California law by requesting and recording personal identification information (address, ZIP code, phone number and/or e-mail address) in conjunction with certain credit card transactions.
Louis Vuitton denies any wrongdoing but has agreed to resolve the litigation by providing Merchandise Certificates as part of a class action lawsuit settlement. The amount of the Merchandise Certificate will depend on the number of Class Members who submit valid claims.
Class Members of the Louis Vuitton settlement include all persons who made a credit card purchase at a California Louis Vuitton store between May 20, 2010, and January 28, 2013, and were asked and provided their personal identification information in conjunction with the credit card transaction. This does not include providing this information for a special purpose such as for shipping, delivery, servicing or repairing of the purchased merchandise or for special orders or paid holds.
The only way to receive a Louis Vuitton Merchandise Certificate is to submit a valid Claim Form on or before November 13, 2013. Merchandise Certificates will only be mailed if the Court grants final approval to the class action lawsuit settlement.
A Final Fairness Hearing is scheduled for December 12, 2013.
Claim Forms and more information on your rights in the Louis Vuitton Class Action Lawsuit Settlement can be found at www.LVNAsettlement.com.
http://www.lvnasettlement.com/
Details on how to file a claim for the Louis Vuitton class action settlement have finally arrived. If you used a credit card to make a purchase from a California Louis Vuitton retail store between 2010 and 2013, you may be eligible to claim a free Merchandise Certificate from the class action settlement.
The proposed Louis Vuitton settlement will resolve a 2011 class action lawsuit (Morey v. Louis Vuitton North America) accusing Louis Vuitton of violating California law by requesting and recording personal identification information (address, ZIP code, phone number and/or e-mail address) in conjunction with certain credit card transactions.
Louis Vuitton denies any wrongdoing but has agreed to resolve the litigation by providing Merchandise Certificates as part of a class action lawsuit settlement. The amount of the Merchandise Certificate will depend on the number of Class Members who submit valid claims.
Class Members of the Louis Vuitton settlement include all persons who made a credit card purchase at a California Louis Vuitton store between May 20, 2010, and January 28, 2013, and were asked and provided their personal identification information in conjunction with the credit card transaction. This does not include providing this information for a special purpose such as for shipping, delivery, servicing or repairing of the purchased merchandise or for special orders or paid holds.
The only way to receive a Louis Vuitton Merchandise Certificate is to submit a valid Claim Form on or before November 13, 2013. Merchandise Certificates will only be mailed if the Court grants final approval to the class action lawsuit settlement.
A Final Fairness Hearing is scheduled for December 12, 2013.
Claim Forms and more information on your rights in the Louis Vuitton Class Action Lawsuit Settlement can be found at www.LVNAsettlement.com.
Props:
YOUNGNUTT
Checks Mailed for Coppertone Sunscreen Class Action Settlement
Payments from the Coppertone sunscreen class action settlement have been mailed to eligible Class Members. Top Class Actions readers are reporting they’ve received checks ranging from $4.50 to $13.50. Many of the checks were received yesterday and today.
The Coppertone sunscreen settlement resolves a long-running class action lawsuit (Brody v. Merck & Co.) that accused Merck (formerly Schering-Plough) of exaggerating the benefits of its sunscreen products, specifically by using the terms “sunblock,” “waterproof,” “all day” and “all day protection.”
Merck denied any wrongdoing and maintained that its sunscreen products met standards set by the FDA, but agreed to compensate consumers through a class action lawsuit settlement. Consumers who purchased eligible Coppertone sunscreen products in the United States between July 31, 2006, and October 5, 2012, were able to file a claim to receive a partial cash refund from the class action settlement. The deadline to file a claim was March 4, 2013.
Congratulations to our Top Class Actions readers who submitted a valid claim and got PAID! If you missed out, sign up for our free weekly e-newsletter below to receive updates on new class action lawsuits and settlements. You can also see which class actions are still accepting claims in our Open Class Action Lawsuits section
lol @ a $4.50 check potentially being taxed
Payments from the Coppertone sunscreen class action settlement have been mailed to eligible Class Members. Top Class Actions readers are reporting they’ve received checks ranging from $4.50 to $13.50. Many of the checks were received yesterday and today.
The Coppertone sunscreen settlement resolves a long-running class action lawsuit (Brody v. Merck & Co.) that accused Merck (formerly Schering-Plough) of exaggerating the benefits of its sunscreen products, specifically by using the terms “sunblock,” “waterproof,” “all day” and “all day protection.”
Merck denied any wrongdoing and maintained that its sunscreen products met standards set by the FDA, but agreed to compensate consumers through a class action lawsuit settlement. Consumers who purchased eligible Coppertone sunscreen products in the United States between July 31, 2006, and October 5, 2012, were able to file a claim to receive a partial cash refund from the class action settlement. The deadline to file a claim was March 4, 2013.
Congratulations to our Top Class Actions readers who submitted a valid claim and got PAID! If you missed out, sign up for our free weekly e-newsletter below to receive updates on new class action lawsuits and settlements. You can also see which class actions are still accepting claims in our Open Class Action Lawsuits section
lol @ a $4.50 check potentially being taxed
Your best bet is to forget about them because it will be upwards of a year before you get the cash. Then just be like "oh nice hey money" when they do show up. And that Truvia one was just settled but they are having a approval hearing on the 23rd of this month. If that goes through, which it sounds like it will, the website to file a claim will probably be up a month or so after that.
Props:
FatBlunts209 and STICK
