- File Your Answer and Meet Deadlines Someone said, 50% of success in the theatre is just showing up. Same with debt defense. Make sure you file your answer in a timely fashion and if there is a court or motion date, you are present.
- Require Proof of the Ownership of the Debt from the Alleged Buyer Where’s the proof. Sometimes a debt buyer will say it was assigned or purchased debt and reference an assignment or other document.
There is no evidence before the Court of the assignment from GE Capital Retail Bank to Cavalry SPV I LLC. Defendants submit the affidavit of the Lead Litigation Analyst for Synchrony Bank, formerly known as GE Capital Retail Bank. In ¶ 7, she states: “Synchrony’s records reflect [Plaintiff’s] Account charged-off due to non-payment and was later sold to Cavalry SPV I, LLC.” There is no copy of a bill of sale nor of a contract of assignment. Therefore, Cavalry SPV I LLC, the alleged assignee, has failed to satisfy its burden by a preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled to enforce the arbitration provision in the Bank’s credit card agreement with Plaintiff. Williams v. Cavalry SPV I LLC, CASE NO. 1:18CV1479, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 19, 2019).
- Serve Discovery as appropriate
You may be able to request information about the claim called discovery. You can generally request documents pertaining to the debt or serve written questions.
- Consider Arbitration Some claims may be subject to arbitration which can provide a more consumer-friendly approach.
- Consider Representation or Speaking with an Attorney to Discuss Strategy
We represent clients facing claims and also provide an initial consultation to represent yourself.
Some front-line people such as nurses and grocery store clerks have experienced legal issues associated with Covid 19. We are prepared to offer our services, frequently on a pro bono basis for those with legal issues where we can help.
Some people may be facing eviction, while others could have other challenges. This may include free telephone consultations, preparation of letters or other work. I cannot commit to taking every cases but we will listen and hopefully in some cases, provide meaningful assistance.
1. VW 8 Speed Transmission Problem
Consumers have complained about a number of problems with the Volkswagen Tiguan AWF8F35 8-Speed Automatic Transmission.
2. Class Action
A class action has been filed to address the problem and notes one goal was to improve gas economy,
“The Transmission was designed to improve the Class Vehicles’
miles-per-gallon ratings in reaction to consumer demand and mounting pressure
from regulators to continually improve fuel economy. Unfortunately, the fuel
economy came at a price. Under pressure to squeeze
more miles per gallon out of the Class Vehicles, VWGoA calibrated the
Transmission’s software to engage higher gears at insufficient speeds and
insufficient revolutions per minute (“RPMs”) and likewise programmed the
torque converter to lock up at insufficient speeds and at insufficient RPMs. Parrish v. Volkswagen, 8:19-cv-01148.
However, significant problems arose,
the Transmission grinds, suffers hard and sudden shifts, delayed acceleration,
hesitation, banging into gear, and ultimately suffers broken seals and oil leaks,
resulting in catastrophic failure (the “Transmission Defect.”)
3. Typical Problems
“There is a growl noise heard when driving less than 25 MPH, around 200 RPMS in 4th gear upshifting to 5th gear.
4. Technical Service Bulletins and Notices
Volkswagen has essentially acknowledged the problem with its issuance of service bulletins to address the pervasive problem. See TSB 32-18-01TT.
FREE CONSULTATION ON YOUR VOLKSWAGEN PROBLEM CALL (973)598-1980
- Problems A number of transmission problems have been reported, including bucking,
harsh engage, sudden acceleration, delay in downshifts, delayed acceleration, difficulty, repeated repair or replacement of the transmission and its components
A class action against General Motors states, “shuddering, shaking, jerking and hesitation is related to internal issues within the transmission and/or torque converter causing undue friction and impairing proper functioning
of hydraulic systems and gears, which in turn results in metal shavings being circulated throughout the transmission. This damage to the transmission and torque converter imposes escalating repairs upon consumers, including the need to flush the metal shavings from the transmission. Because of
the Transmission Defect, the Class Vehicles present a safety hazard and are unreasonably dangerous to consumers. ” Shelton v. General Motors, Case 2:19-cv-11802-S
- Vehicles coveredVehicles include the 2015-2019 Chevrolet Silverado; the 2017-2019
Chevrolet Colorado; the 2015-2019 Chevrolet Corvette; the 2016-2019 Chevrolet Camaro; the 2015-2019, Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV; the 2016-2019 Cadillac ATS, ATS-V, CTS, CT6, and CTS-V, 2015-2019 GMC Sierra, Yukon, and Yukon XL, and Yukon Denali XL; and the 2017-2019 GMC Canyon.
Similar problems with these vehicles have been covered on this site.
- Legal Status A class action has been filed. People may also individually recover compensation.
CALL (973) 598-1980 FOR A FREE CONSULTATION
1. Class Action and CUE System
There have been a number of complaints about the Cadillac Touch Tone Display. A class action states,
GM has concealed a dangerous defect from its customers
who purchased or leased 2013 to 2017 Cadillac ATS, SRX and XTS vehicles and
2014 to 2017 Cadillac CTS, ELR and Escalade vehicles equipped with GM’s
“Cadillac User Experience” touch screen display (the “CUE System” or “CUE”)
(collectively, “Class Vehicles”). Among other things, the CUE System controls
the vehicle’s climate, navigation, audio/Bluetooth/communications, and back-up
camera. GM’s conduct is especially egregious because the defective CUE
Systems pose serious safety risks.
2. Vehicles Covered
Cadillac ATS (model years 2013-2015)
Cadillac SRX (model years 2013-2015)
Cadillac XTS (model years 2013-2015)
Cadillac CTS Vin A (model years 2014-2015)
Cadillac ELR (model years 2014-2015)
CALL NOW FOR A FREE CONSULTATION ON YOUR VEHICLE PROBLEM
1. OxyCodon Claims
There are allegations that Purdue Pharmaceutical marketed Oxycontin without sufficient warning of his dangers, causing patients to become addicted.
The Promotion and Marketing of OxyContin: Commercial Triumph, Public Health Tragedy
2. Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy and Opportunity to Present Claims
Following revelations of wrongdoing, a verdict by a governmental entity, the company declared bankruptcy.
Our office is representing individuals who have addiction claims. We provide a free consultation and will help prepare your claim on a contingency basis (no payment required.
If you believe you have been injured by Purdue, or Purdue prescription opioids, like OxyContin® or other prescription opioids produced, marketed or sold by Purdue, you can file a claim for compensation. The Bankruptcy Court has set June 30, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. (Prevailing Eastern Time) (the “Bar Date”) as the deadline for each person, entity, governmental unit and Native American Tribe to file Proofs of Claim for claims that arose from an action taken by the Debtors prior to September 15, 2019 (but you may file a claim for damages suffered by any person or entity both prior to and after that date).
If you are interested in discussing your claim, call (973) 598-1980 for a free consultation.
1. Starlink System Problems.
Subaru owners have complained of problems with Starlink system. Vehicles experience a range of technical glitches that cause freezing, non-responsiveness or other malfunctions of the Starlink System. A class action settlement involves the 2017 Impreza, 2018 Impreza, 2018 Forester, 2018 Outback, 2018 Legacy, 2018 Crosstrek or a 2018 BRZ vehicle equipped with the Generation 3.0 head unit manufactured by Harman International Industries, Inc.
2. Class Action Notice.
Here is a notice from the class action.
A class action lawsuit was filed against Subaru of America, Inc. (“SOA”) and Subaru Corporation (“SBR,” and, collectively with SOA, the “Defendants”) alleging that the Settlement Class Vehicles experience a range of technical glitches that cause freezing, non-responsiveness or other malfunctions of the Starlink System. The lawsuit alleges that Defendants have violated certain consumer statutes and breached certain warranties, and it seeks certification of a nationwide class of present and former purchasers and lessees of Settlement Class Vehicles to pursue these claims.
Defendants deny these claims. SOA and SBR maintain that the Settlement Class Vehicles are not defective. Defendants maintain that the Settlement Class Vehicles function(ed) in a proper manner, were properly designed, manufactured, distributed, and that Defendants did not violate any warranties, statutes, or laws. In the instances in which such repairs have been necessary, Defendants maintain that they have provided warranty coverage where appropriate.
You are a Settlement Class Member if you are a current or past purchaser or lessee of a 2017 Impreza, 2018 Impreza, 2018 Forester, 2018 Outback, 2018 Legacy, 2018 Crosstrek or a 2018 BRZ vehicle equipped with the Generation 3.0 head unit manufactured by Harman International Industries, Inc. (“Settlement Class Vehicles”), and you purchased your vehicle in the continental United States, including Alaska and Hawaii.
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS
|SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM||The only way to get a reimbursement, but not necessary to get an extended warranty. See FAQ 8.||April 1, 2020 (Submitted Online or Postmarked)|
|EXCLUDE YOURSELF||Get no reimbursement or extended warranty. This is the only option that allows you to ever be part of any other lawsuit against Subaru about the legal claims in this case. See FAQ 12.||February 17, 2020 (Submitted Online or Postmarked) PASSED|
|OBJECT||Write to the Court about why you don’t like the Settlement.|
See FAQ 17.
|February 13, 2020 (Postmarked) PASSED|
|GO TO A HEARING||Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement.|
See FAQ 19.
|May 7, 2020|
|DO NOTHING||Receive extended warranty but no payment.|
Call for a free consultation about your rights,
There is a good deal of discussion about whether insurance will cover some of the substantial costs associated with the Covid virus.
1. Policy Terms
The first question will be what does the policy provide, and indeed, there are a range of policies.
2. Direct Physical Loss of Damage Requirement
Many policies require proof of “direct physical loss or damage.”
3. Other Cases
One court found that bacterial and mold contamination was not a “direct
physical loss” under a property insurance policy. Universal Image Products. v. Federal Insurance Co., 475 Fed. Appx. 569 (6th Cir. 2012). However, Gregory Packaging, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. (D.N.J. 2014), found such a loss from an ammonia leak in a building. See Businesses Scramble to Assess Insurance Coverage for COVID-19.
However, it would be hard to attribute a general downturn, or instruction to stop work as a incident of physical loss or damage.
Some insurers inserted exclusions of viruses in their policies.
CHEVY SHAKE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT CONTINUES FOR FLORIDA CUSTOMERS
A Chevy shake class action lawsuit will proceed, but not on a nationwide basis reports Carcomplaints.com. Owners who experience problems may be entitled to compensation.
The Florida plaintiff said his new 2015 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 suffered from the so-called Chevy shake that caused his truck to violently shake when it reached about 70 mph and shakes strongest in the range of 75-80 mph. The lawsuit alleges the plaintiff paid more than $2,000 to replace the brakes, rotors, tires and for re-rounding of the rims. The plaintiff says he also took the truck back to a Firestorm store for realignment and rebalancing of the tires, but the violent shaking allegedly continued.
According to the class action, defective driveshafts cause the following vehicles to violently shake while driving.
- 2015 to present Cadillac Escalade
- 2014 to present Chevrolet Silverado
- 2015 to present Chevrolet Suburban
- 2015 to present Chevrolet Tahoe
- 2014 to present GMC Sierra
- 2015 to present GMC Yukon/Yukon XL
1. Shake/ vibration Problem
The shake is allegedly caused by aluminum driveshafts that eventually deteriorate and fail as the driveshafts drop to the ground. The plaintiff argues General Motors sent technical service bulletins (TSBs) to dealerships for 10 years concerning the Chevy shake but allegedly refuses to make permanent free repairs to the vehicles. According to the class action, victims of the Chevy shake continue to pay for repairs even when the vehicles are allegedly still covered by warranties.
Some suggest you can can get rid of the Chevy shake by replacing the aluminum driveshafts with custom-made steel driveshafts. But the cost of installing a steel driveshaft is thrown onto the customer because the automaker won’t recall the vehicles and won’t cover repair costs.
In addition, the plaintiff claims multiple GM models suffer the Chevy shake, yet the plaintiff doesn’t own any of those other models.
The automaker also argued the plaintiff apparently wants a limited warranty to last a lifetime because a GM dealer refused to pay for repairs after the Silverado warranty allegedly expired.
The judge ruled the lawsuit can proceed for Florida GM customers but there will be no nationwide class action lawsuit. According to the judge, the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act claim is the only federal claim asserted in the lawsuit, and the claim depends on Florida law.
The judge ruled the plaintiff doesn’t claim a legal injury in any state other than Florida and doesn’t allege an injury under the laws of any other state.
“Therefore, the Plaintiff lacks standing to assert claims on behalf of class members who purchased GM vehicles outside of Florida.” – District Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr.
Although the claim for nationwide class action certification was dismissed, the judge did allow the Florida class action to continue based on breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranties and violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The Chevy shake class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami – Weiss, et al., v. General Motors LLC. CarComplaints.com has owner-reported complaints about the vehicles named in the GM class action.
CALL (973) 598 1980 to discuss your rights to compensation or replacement. Free Consultation.