|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 4329 | Consumer Products | 07/05/2005
A federal judge in the Southern District of New York has given class action status to a lawsuit filed by a New Jersey man who claims he was defrauded and tricked into the purchase of "Freedom Tower Silver Dollar" coins.
In the lawsuit, attorney Stephen P. DeNittis claims National Collector's Mint Inc. misrepresented the composition of the commemorative coin, which sold for $23.45 plus shipping and handling. In advertising, the $1 coin was described as made of pure silver recovered from ground zero at the World Trade Center. It also was described as "a legally authorized government issue silver dollar" that was legal tender in the U.S. At least 1,000 copies of the coin were sold to New Jersey residents since it first was offered for sale on Sept. 1, 2004, according to the lawsuit. The imitation coins are not marked copies. The lawsuit describes the advertising campaign as "a shameless attempt to profit from a national tragedy." Class action status is sought when it is impossible to determine at the time a lawsuit is filed the exact number of people who could be plaintiffs, but when all suffer the same potential damages. Because it is a consumer fraud case, if the lawsuit ends in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendant company would be responsible for payment of all legal costs. In a ruling on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon denied a motion by National Collector's Mint to dismiss the complaint. Instead of being made of pure silver, Spitzer said in court documents, the medallion is an inexpensive metal alloy plated with one ten-thousandth of an inch of silver. Its value is about 1.4 cents, Spitzer said. On July 2, 2005, the coins were being offered for sale on e-Bay, an Internet auction site, for $49.95 each. 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 An administrative proceeding has been filed against Smart Inventions, Inc., a California-based direct response TV company, and its Chief Operating Officer, Jon D. Nokes, by the Federal Trade Commission on behalf of persons who purchased “Biotape,” a tape-like substance promoted to treat or cure severe pain. The action alleges that there is no substantial evidence that the product relieves pain, and that the advertisements violate the FTC Act because they are false and misleading. A class action lawsuit was filed alleging that Dell notebooks suffer from design defects that cause premature failure of the motherboard due to overheating. Rewards Network Inc., which provides marketing services and loyalty programs to the restaurant industry, reached a preliminary agreement to settle a class action lawsuit brought against the company in California for up to $28 million. 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. Have you noticed that the cigarette companies no longer advertise that light cigarettes contain less tar and nicotine? A class action has been filed against Philip Morris USA, Inc. on behalf of New Hampshire residents who purchased and smoked Marlboro Light and Marlboro Ultralight cigarettes in the state at any time since 1971. These smokers allege that the company intentionally deceived them regarding the health hazards of smoking light cigarettes, in violation of New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act. A statewide class action has been filed in New York against Integretel, Inc., Mercury Marketing of Delaware, Inc. and Neal Saferstein, owner of these companies. The action is brought on behalf of all New York residents who, since 1997, never agreed to pay for an Internet service, or any other service, from Mercury Marketing of Delaware, Inc., or its subsidiaries, but who have been billed by Mercury on their phone bills anyway. The consumers allege that, in agreement with local phone services providers such as Verizon Wireless, Mercury and its subsidiaries illegally piggyback fees for services that are never provided onto consumers' telephone bills. Consumers allege that Mercury and its subsidiaries have a long history of this illegal conduct and have engaged in fraud, breach of contract, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, tortious conversion and deceptive trade practices as a result of this conduct. Additionally, the consumers allege that Mercury's subsidiary, Integretel, Inc., has violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by attempting to and actually collecting from consumers for these nonexistent services. The consumers are seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, treble damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. |
IT'S FREE
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
