Do not call list violations are increasing and our Do Not Call List Site cover claims. Some client may see contingent representation and Contingency law covers this area. Finally clients seeking local counsel can check out local counsel
Feel free to contact us about legal developments and related areas of law.
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.
A General Motors Hydra-Matic transmission lawsuit alleges multiple models shudder, jerk, have acceleration problems, fail to downshift and have trouble stopping even when using the brakes. The Hydra-Matic 8L90 and 8L45 class action lawsuit includes these vehicles.
- 2015-2017 Cadillac Escalade
- 2015-2017 Cadillac Escalade ESV
- 2016-2019 Cadillac ATS
- 2016-2019 Cadillac ATS-V
- 2016-2019 Cadillac CTS
- 2016-2019 Cadillac CT6
- 2016-2019 Cadillac CTS-V
- 2015-2019 Chevrolet Silverado
- 2017-2019 Chevrolet Colorado
- 2015-2019 Chevrolet Corvette
- 2016-2019 Chevrolet Camaro
- 2015-2019 GMC Sierra
- 2015-2019 GMC Yukon
- 2015-2019 GMC Yukon XL
- 2017-2019 GMC Canyon
CALL NOW FOR A FREE CONSULTATION (973) 598-1980. NO PAYMENT REQUIRED FROM CLIENT.
- FTC Lawsuit
The Federal Trade Commission sued online dating service Match Group, Inc. (Match), the owner of Match.com, Tinder, OKCupid, PlentyOfFish, and other dating sites, alleging that the company used fake love interest advertisements to trick hundreds of thousands of consumers into purchasing paid subscriptions on Match.com.
The agency also alleges that Match has unfairly exposed consumers to the risk of fraud and engaged in other allegedly deceptive and unfair practices. For instance, the FTC alleges Match offered false promises of “guarantees,” failed to provide services to consumers who unsuccessfully disputed charges, and made it difficult for users to cancel their subscriptions.
The Legal Complaint (Docket 3:19-cv-02281-2) states,
” Since at least 2013, Defendant has maintained the following five deceptive or unfair practices to induce consumers to subscribe to Match.com and to keep them subscribed. (Case 3:19-cv-02281-2 First, until mid-2018,
(false dating communications)
Defendant sent consumers misleading advertisements that tout communications from persons Defendant identified as potentially fraudulent users of Match.com and led consumers to believe that the communications are from persons interested in establishing a dating relationship with them.
Second, until mid-2018, Defendant exposed consumers to the risk of fraud by providing recent subscribers access to communications that Defendant knew were likely to have been sent by persons engaging in fraud.
Third, until mid-2019, Defendant guaranteed certain consumers a free six-month subscription renewal if they fail to “meet someone special” but failed to disclose the requirements of its “guarantee” adequately.
Fourth, Defendant has misled consumers with a confusing and cumbersome cancellation process that causes consumers to believe they have canceled their subscriptions when they have not. Fifth, until mid-2019, when consumers disputed charges relating to any of these practices and lose the dispute, Defendant denied consumers access to paid-for services.
IF YOU WERE A VICTIM OF DECEPTIVE DATING, ADVERTISING, OR SALES PRACTICES, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION. CALL (973) 598-1980 FOR A FREE CONSULTATION
Were you a victim of Oxycondin addiction. Were you prescribed a drug in excessive amounts because of the manufacturer’s marketing and concealment of problems. Do you believe that the company should have disclosed relevant information to the prescribing physicians. Our office is reviewing claims for Oxycondin addiction.
“At least 30 states and 2,000 state, local and tribal governments have filed lawsuits claiming the pharmaceutical company is responsible for the nationwide opioid crisis. The lawsuits — which have also been filed by unions, hospitals, and lawyers representing babies who were born in opioid withdrawal — have been consolidated under a single federal judge in Cleveland.”
CALL (973) 598-1980 FOR A FREE CONSULTATION TO DISCUSS COMPENSATION AND OTHER REMEDIES.
General Motors May Face Class-Action Lawsuit Over Defective 8-Speed Transmissions
Models affected include the Chevrolet Silverado and Colorado, as well as the GMC Sierra and Canyon
The filed class-action lawsuit affects the Chevrolet Silverado as well as the GMC Sierra. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege General Motors’ 8-speed transmissions are defective.
Certain Chevrolet, Cadillac and GMC models built between 2015 and 2019 may have a defect in their 8-speed transmissions, according to a class-action lawsuit posted to ClassAction.org. GM Authority spotted the lawsuit, which says there are serious problems with GM’s Hydra-Matic 8L90 and 8L45 transmissions.
More specifically, the transmissions have a defect that cause vehicles to hesitate and jerk when accelerating or coming to a stop. The lawsuit reads, “These transmissions have a common defect…Drivers have reported that the shift is sometimes so violent, they feel as though they have been hit by another vehicle.”
It also mentions the case of an owner whose vehicle shifted from reverse to drive harshly enough that it nearly lurched through his garage door. The defect centers around the transmission itself or the torque converter. Over time, any shuddering, jerking or hestitation may cause internal issues, including metal shavings being circulated throughout the transmission.
1. Compensation and Remedies
If you experienced problems with your GM Colorado, you may be entitled to compensation, a new vehicle, or a refund. Call for a Free Consultation, (claims handled on contingency with no payment needed).
Complaints have been filed about deception by surrogacy groups. Sometimes promised refunds if conception is not possible are not provided.
Other times, availability and promised assistance is not as promised.
Have you been a victim of fraud or deception by a surrogacy group, call for a Free Consultation
Here are some resource pages we have located in various areas of law.
www.contingencylawyernjny.com (Have a valid claim but worried about continuing legal fees. Consider possible contingency representation)
www.bettercallblackie.com (Cal. DUI lawyer)
www.ricolawyer.org (Representation and consultation under
State and Federal RICO laws)
www.lemonlawclaims.com (Review of lemon law claims, check pages on the Chevrolet Colorado)
1. Not recognizing challenges
New Jersey keeps statistics about lemon law trials and manufacturers win 70% of those trials. So if you believe you simple need to show 3 repairs or 20 days out of service, you are unfortunately misplaced.
2. Requirement that the Problem Continues
First, the law typically requires that the problem still exists. So a lot of consumers lose when they say, I don’t care if they say its fixed and I agree its not malfunctioning now, but who’s to say it won’t malfunction in the future. The point is I paid 45,000 for this car, I feel unsafe, and I want a reliable vehicle that I can trust. Sounds good but that is not the legal standard.
3. Material Impairment
You have to prove that a problem materially impairs use, value, or safety, saying the vehicle is unsafe may not be enough.
4. Doing it Yourself
One thing we do is review the challenges beforehand, so the consumer is not surprised. There are provisions for payment if you prevail, and doing it yourself can be a fatal and unnecessary mistake.
5. Lack of Expert Testimony and the Vehicle Characteristic Defense
Some problems are evident but sometimes, a manufacturer will suggest a condition is simply a product of the car’s design. If a 4 cylinder vehicle is sluggish, that’s because the vehicle is designed for good gas economy. Expert testimony can frequently dispel the claim of product design and help establish a problem. We had a case involving an conditioner that periodically malfunctions, with the manufacturer submitting that the problem did not impair use, value, or safety. However, the expert explained that the underlying problem impacted the engine, and the judge agreed the issue was substantial placing it under the lemon law.
6. Choosing the Wrong Forum
There are relatively strict requirements for lemon law cases in the Office of Administrative Law, but a variety of claims can be brought in court. An attorney can help review where the case should be filed.
7. Getting a Lawyer Too Late
A sadly over-confident client loses a lemon law trial and then consults a lawyer. Appeals may be time-consuming and clearly it is better to review options before trial.
HAVE A LEMON LAW CLAIM, CALL FOR A FREE CONSULTATION