|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 2954 | Automotive | 07/27/2004
A statewide class action has been filed in Ohio against Envirotest Systems Corporation on behalf of all Ohio residents who, since December 1995, have taken their automobiles to an Ohio E-Check facility for mandatory emissions testing and were charged for the test when their vehicle failed the test. The automobile owners are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages of no less than $25,000.
Under Ohio law, all vehicles registered in the state must take and pass a vehicle emissions test. Several facilities, called E-Test centers, are provided statewide in order to perform these tests. These test centers are operated by Envirotest under contract with the State of Ohio. Under Ohio law, a fee for the emission test is required only if the vehicle passes the emission test. The class members claim that they were required to pay the fee even though their vehicles failed the emission test. According to the class members, this is a willful violation of Ohio law on the part of Envirotest. The class members claim that since December 1995, Envirotest has tested tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of cars that have failed the test. The class members allege that Envirotest has illegally charged fees for these failed tests. They are seeking, aside from monetary damages, an order by the court terminating this practice. 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 Automotive Cases of Interest A nationwide class action has been filed against Carfax, Inc., on behalf of consumers who used the company's service from October 1998 to the present. The action alleges that the company misleads customers into believing that its car title searches are nationwide, in violation of the Ohio Sales Practices Act. A class action has been filed against the Banc One Acceptance Corporation on behalf of all Florida residents who leased cars from Banc One between October 16, 1998, and October 16, 2003, and who paid "taxes" on itemized fees for wear and tear, excessive mileage and disposition of the vehicles at the end of their lease. The lessees claim that these "taxes" were merely hidden fees and that Banc One either pocketed the "tax" money, or benefited from it prior to forwarding it to the Department of Revenue.
An undependable insurance company seems like a contradiction in terms, or is it? The parties have reached a tentative settlement in an action filed against Pacific Pioneer Insurance Company on behalf of all persons who purchased a Pacific Pioneer automobile insurance policy in California between December 18, 1996, and September 27, 2003, and who were charged a reinstatement fee after their policies were canceled for alleged non-payment of premium even though the policies were paid-up at the time the notice of cancellation was mailed. Class members must submit a signed, written request for reimbursement of reinstatement fees paid following a notice of cancellation during the stated period postmarked no later than September 27, 2003, to take part in the settlement. Landstar will appeal a U.S. District Court ruling certifying a class action in a lawsuit over Landstar’s owner-operator contracts.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and four owner-operators have sued Landstar, alleging that the fleet’s contractual agreements with its independent owner-operators do not meet federal disclosure requirements. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. quietly settled a class-action lawsuit that covers about 3.5 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles that may have been damaged by engine oil sludge. A group of 140 plaintiffs is suing Ford, GM, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, AutoZone, and Advance Auto Parts. The plaintiffs are seeking a court ruling to be able to use the "product lines" they purchased as their proof of the required "product markets" in their antitrust suit for illegal price discrimination brought under the 1936 Federal Robinson-Patman Act. |
IT'S FREE
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
