|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 2824 | Consumer Products | 10/28/2003
A class action has been filed against Leviton Manufacturing Company, Inc. on behalf of South Carolina residents whose homes have an allegedly unsafe type of electrical outlet--a back plug-in outlet--manufactured by Leviton in violation of state consumer safety laws. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages.
Traditional electrical outlets use a set screw to securely hold the copper wire that supplies the current to the outlet. The action alleges that the outlets manufactured by Leviton use a spring-loaded clamping device to hold the wires in place--if the spring becomes fatigued and fails, the wire may lose a secure connection to the outlet and become a fire hazard. This sort of outlet is occasionally referred to as a "back plug-in outlet." The outlets targeted by the action are sold in hardware stores across the nation. The only way to ascertain if your home has them is to remove an outlet from the wall and look at its back. If the wires that bring current to the outlet are screwed down securely, your home does not have the plug-in type. If you are uncomfortable removing an outlet from the wall, you should contact an electrician to do it for you. Certain cities, including Chicago, have banned the use of back plug-in outlets in certain applications. Underwriters Laboratories has issued a corrective bulletin about them, stating that enough complaints have been lodged to change the code standard.
At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Consumer Products Cases of Interest Deregulation of the market has done stockholders no favors. Several class actions have been filed against jewelry retailer Friedman's, Inc. Friedman's, Inc. (NYSE: FRM, formerly Nasdaq: FRDM) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between January 26, 2000, through November 17, 2003, and all those who purchased Friedman's shares in its offering on February 11, 2002, for $9.50 per share and its offering on September 18, 2003, for $15.00 per share. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The parties have reached a tentative settlement in a class action filed against Shaw Industries, Inc., on behalf of California businesses and residents who performed work in connection with floor covering products under warranty by Shaw in California between September 19, 1998, and June 4, 2004. The action alleges that Shaw did not properly compensate its dealers for activities undertaken in connection with the service, repair, and replacement of floor covering products covered by warranty. Persons eligible to take part in the settlement should contact the attorneys for the class for more information. A class action lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District Court of California against Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) for violations of patent law and the California Business and Professional Code. Class members seek compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs of the litigation. A class action lawsuit was filed June 28, 2005 by California credit card holders and merchants against Cardsystems Solutions, Inc. and others alleging a failure to maintain adequate data security which led to a security breach exposing over 40 million credit card holders to potential fraud.
A class action lawsuit has been filed in the Middle District Court of Florida against Sonic Automotive, Inc. for unlawful, deceptive, and misleading business practices and tortuous acts in the State of Florida. Class members seek compensatory and statutory damages as well as attorney's fees and costs of the litigation. The "See Clearly Method" kits claim to improve eyesight without surgery, yet they are the target of a consumer fraud lawsuit. A judge has issued a temporary injunction against the kit makers, Vision Improvement Technologies. The kits included manuals and tapes that show eye exercises and other techniques. According to the lawsuit, the company has shipped out as many as 5,000 to 10,000 kits a month at a cost of about $350 each. About half of the consumers who received the kit returned it within the 30 days and were not obligated to make the full payment, but many who did not return it within the 30 days still sought a refund for various reasons.
|
IT'S FREE
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
