|
|
|
CARRIER iQ, Inc. Sued in Class Action
Court Watch |
2011/12/05 10:21
|
New York City based Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys at Law and Los Angeles based Kiesel Boucher & Larson LLP announced this morning that they have filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against Mountain View, California based CARRIER iQ, Inc. on behalf of a class comprised of all persons and entities who own an electronic device, including but not limited to, smartphones, feature phones, tablets, and electronic-readers (collectively, the "Electronic Devices"), in which CiQ's Mobile Intelligence software application is installed.
The class action complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that CiQ manufactures a software application that, unbeknownst to Class members, was embedded into a wide variety of Electronic Devices, including but not limited to, smartphones, feature phones, tablets, and electronic-readers, purchased by Class members over the past six years. Plaintiff further alleges that CiQ utilized its software application to illegally intercept, collect, and share the data and communications sent or received by Class members over their Electronic Devices in which CiQ's software application has been secretly installed for approximately six years.
More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that CiQ's software application enabled CiQ to illegally intercept and monitor all communications that are sent to, and received by, an Electronic Device in which CiQ's software is installed. CiQ's software does so by: (i) intercepting and recording all keystrokes depressed on the Electronic Devices; (ii) intercepting, reading and displaying the actual text of all text messages sent from, or received by, the Electronic Devices; and (iii) intercepting, reading and displaying all Internet browser searches conducted on private Wi-Fi networks
In commenting on the allegations of the Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff's attorney Paul O. Paradis remarked, "The vast nature of CiQ's illegal interception activities and the fact that the Company's illegal activities were able to be conducted without detection for nearly 6 years is frightening. In the digital age in which we live, the revelation of CiQ's illegal electronic interception activities is a watershed moment for privacy advocates around the world and serves as an alarming wake up call to all of us who are concerned about protecting the privacy of confidential communications of any type." Attorney Paul Kiesel added, "At this juncture of the litigation, it appears that in excess of 140 million class members were victimized by CiQ's illegal interception activities. That fact, in and of itself, is stunning."
Plaintiff alleges that CiQ's illegal interception and data collection and sharing activities violated both the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California's Invasion of Privacy Act, as well as other laws intended to protect Class member's privacy and property interests. Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, restitution, punitive damages on behalf of himself and all Class members, as well as an injunction enjoining Defendant from continuing the illegal practices complained of in the Complaint.
If you have any information concerning practices complained of in the Class Action Complaint or would like further information regarding this nationwide class action, please contact Paul O. Paradis at 212-986-4500 or e-mail at pparadis@hhplawny.com or Paul Kiesel at 310-854-4444 or email at kiesel@kbla.com.
Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys at Law, and Kiesel Boucher & Larson, LLP have been retained as two of the law firms to represent the Class. The attorneys at Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys at Law, and Kiesel Boucher & Larson, LLP have extensive experience in prosecuting class action cases, and have been appointed as Lead Counsel in numerous major class actions by federal and state courts across the United States and have obtained major recoveries on behalf of injured parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ala court voids $8.4M verdict against GE Capital
Court Watch |
2011/12/02 11:04
|
The Alabama Supreme Court has reversed an $8.6 million verdict against GE Capital Aviation Services in a lawsuit filed by Pemco World Air Services Inc.
The justices ruled Friday that a lower court was wrong when it refused to overturn a verdict returned by jurors in 2009 in Dale County. The Tampa, Fla.-based, Pemco has a plant in Dothan.
Pemco refurbishes airplanes, and GE Capital leases and finances aircraft. The companies accused each other of breach of contract and fraud in 2004 over a contract to convert Boeing 737 owned by GE Capital from passenger planes into freighters.
Jurors sided with Pemco, but the Supreme Court says evidence didn't support the claim. The justices sent the case back to Dale County for a new trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pa. capital takeover challenged in federal court
Headline Legal News |
2011/12/02 11:03
|
The state takeover of Pennsylvania's financially troubled capital city received a fresh challenge Thursday, as three Harrisburg residents filed a federal lawsuit calling it an unconstitutional violation of their rights and asking for it to be stopped.
The suit names Gov. Tom Corbett, who signed a law on Oct. 20 enabling an unprecedented takeover of Harrisburg, and the Corbett appointee who, if confirmed, would have broad authority to force the city to pay down a massive debt tied to its trash incinerator.
The lawsuit was filed by a former mayoral candidate, a firefighters' union president and a religious leader. It alleges that the law and the state's takeover violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.
A Corbett administration spokeswoman said she had not seen the lawsuit and could not immediately comment.
The suit is the latest twist in a battle over who will end up footing the $300 million incinerator debt.
The first attempt to stop the takeover failed last week when a federal bankruptcy judge threw out a petition by a divided City Council to get federal bankruptcy protection for Harrisburg. The judge said the city had been legally barred by a separate state law — signed June 30 by Corbett — from seeking bankruptcy protection and, in any case, had no authority to go over the mayor's head to file it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wis. office wants to suspend former DA's license
Court News |
2011/12/01 10:24
|
The Wisconsin office that regulates attorney conduct asked the state Supreme Court on Wednesday to suspend a former prosecutor's law license for trying to spark an affair with a domestic abuse victim through a barrage of racy text messages and allegedly making sexual remarks to a number of other women.
The Office of Lawyer Regulation filed a complaint with the court alleging former Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz violated multiple attorney conduct rules. The office recommended the justices suspend his law license for six months.
Kratz resigned in October 2010 after The Associated Press reported that he sent 30 texts over three days to a then-25-year-old domestic abuse victim in 2009. The Republican district attorney was prosecuting the woman's ex-boyfriend at the time.
Kratz, then 50, called the woman a "tall, young, hot nymph," told her he wanted her to "be so hot" and touted himself as "the prize" with a $350,000 house.
He has since set up a private practice that handles criminal defense, drunken driving, divorce and injury cases, according to the firm's website. Kratz didn't respond to an email or phone message left Wednesday at his office, and his attorney, Robert Bellin, also didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Farmers Insurance Settles Class Action Lawsuit
Court Watch |
2011/12/01 10:24
|
Farmers Insurance entered into a settlement of a nationwide class action lawsuit, In Re Farmers Med-Pay Litigation, pending in the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma. The settlement includes Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, Farmers Group, Inc., Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, and certain related entities. The Court entered a final order approving the settlement on November 29, 2011.
Plaintiffs alleged that Farmers failed to pay reasonable expenses for necessary medical services related to automobile accidents under Medical Payments and Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") coverage in automobile policies based on Farmers' use of certain claim adjustment systems and procedures. Farmers denies all of Plaintiffs' claims in the lawsuit. However, Farmers agreed to resolve the lawsuit to avoid the burden and expense of continued litigation.
The Settlement Class includes all persons who submitted claims for payment of medical bills related to an automobile accident under Med-pay or PIP coverage if (a) the claim was adjusted from January 1, 2001 to February 9, 2009 based upon a recommended reduction from Zurich Services Corporation ("ZSC"), (b) the claim was paid at less than the amount billed, and (c) total Med-pay or PIP payments were less than the respective limits of coverage. The Class also includes medical providers who were assigned the right to assert these claims.
Those affected by this settlement must complete and submit a valid claim form postmarked no later than December 29, 2011. Further information and claim forms can be obtained by visiting www.MedpayClaimsAdministration.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Investment Fraud Litigation |
|
|
|
|
Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a practice that induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information, frequently resulting in losses, in violation of the securities laws. Securities Arbitration. Generally speaking, securities fraud consists of deceptive practices in the stock and commodity markets, and occurs when investors are enticed to part with their money based on untrue statements.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Securities Law News 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. | Affordable Law Firm Website Design by Law Promo |
|
Legal News RSS Feed
