return to current cases home

cases

Aluminum Sulfate Litigation

In re: Liquid Aluminum Sulfate Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2687, (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation).

This multi-district litigation concerns an alleged price-fixing and bid-rigging scheme for a water-treatment chemical used by municipalities and paper companies. CGL is representing indirect purchasers of the chemical who are seeking to recover damages incurred by the conspiracy.

The nineteen cases that comprise the litigation were recently consolidated with a designated venue of New Jersey.

For more information, please contact attorney Benjamin D. Elga at 202-789-3960 or by email at belga@cuneolaw.com.

Vehicle Carrier Services Antitrust Litigation

In re: Vehicle Carrier Services Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2471 (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey).

CGL is Interim Co-Lead Counsel representing automobile dealers against international vehicle carrier service companies in a multi-district litigation case, and an action before the Federal Maritime Commission, concerning an alleged price-fixing and market allocation conspiracy among international operators of Roll-on/Roll-off (“RoRos”) ships—specially designed to transport vehicles which can be driven on and off. Plaintiffs are seeking damages for the costs associated with inflated prices resulting from the conspiracy, as well as injunctive relief for the alleged antitrust violations.

Defendants’ conduct has been the subject of investigations by the Japanese Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, the European Commission Competition Authority, Australia’s Federal Court, and Canada’s Competition Bureau. The DOJ has announced that Defendants Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd., Compañía Sud Americana De Vapores S.A., and Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha have agreed to plead guilty and pay criminal fines collectively totaling more than $300 million for their involvement in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate customers, and rig bids for vehicle carrier services to and from the United States.

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the complaint, and the decision is now on appeal.

For more information, please contact attorney Benjamin D. Elga at 202-789-3960 or by email at belga@cuneolaw.com.

Titanium Dioxide Indirect Purchaser Litigation

Jan Harrison, et al. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-01180-BLF (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California).

This putative class action lawsuit, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that United States producers of titanium dioxide conspired to raise the price of this important ingredient, which is used in paints, other coated plastics, paper, and countless other consumer and industrial products. Defendants and their co-conspirators control 100 percent of the United States’ Titanium Dioxide capacity. CGL is maintaining this case on behalf of indirect purchasers, namely retailers and consumers of architectural paint (house paint) in the United States. In June, the court upheld the plaintiffs’ complaint.

For additional information, please contact attorneys Jonathan Cuneo, Katherine Van Dyck, or Benjamin Elga at (202) 789-3960 or by email at jonc@cuneolaw.com, kvandyck@cuneolaw.com, or belga@cuneolaw.com.

Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation

In re: Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 15-md-02670-JLS-MDD (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California).

CGL was appointed interim lead counsel on behalf of commercial food preparer indirect purchaser plaintiffs in 27 states and territories in a case seeking class action status that alleges a conspiracy to unlawfully inflate prices for shelf-stable seafood products targeting the United States market.

CGL was appointed interim lead counsel on March 24, 2016.

For additional information, please contact Jonathan Cuneo, Joel Davidow or Benjamin D. Elga at (202) 789-3960, or by email at jonc@cuneolaw.com, joel@cuneolaw.com and belga@cuneolaw.com.

Wen Haircare Products

Friedman, et al. v. Guthy-Renker LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06009-ODW (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California).

This case concerns allegations of severe hair loss and scalp irritation resulting from use of Wen haircare products. The products are manufactured and sold by one of the largest direct marketing firms in the world, Guthy-Renker, as well as WEN by Chaz Dean, Inc. Defendants’ advertising indicates that the product is safe and that consumers cannot use too much or leave the product in too long. To the contrary, many consumers have experienced extreme and abnormal hair loss of one-quarter to one-third of their hair, despite using the product as directed.

A preliminary settlement approval hearing is set for August 1, 2016.

If you have experienced any of these symptoms please complete the WEN Intake Form  and send to apeck@cuneolaw.com.

2006 Subaru B9 Tribeca

Hadley, et al. v. Subaru of America, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:2015-cv-07210 (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey).

CGL has filed a case against Subaru of America, Inc., alleging that the 2006 Subaru B9 Tribeca has a dangerous defect which causes the hood to fly open, damaging the windshield and blinding the driver, placing the passengers, other motorists, and pedestrians at risk. Despite numerous complaints about this issue, Subaru has not issued a recall or warned the owners of the thousands of Subaru Tribecas which may be subject to the same defect.

Shortly after the lawsuit’s filing, Subaru announced an international recall of the affected model. Case negotiations are ongoing.

If you are the owner of a 2006 or 2007 Subaru Tribeca and would like to discuss your rights of recovery, whether you have experienced this defect or not, you may, without any cost or obligation, call Benjamin D. Elga at (202) 789-3960, or email him at belga@cuneolaw.com.

GAF – Defective Fiberglass Roofing Shingles

In re: Building Material Corporation of America Asphalt Roofing Shingle Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 8:11–mn–02000–JMC (U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina).

We served as co-lead counsel in several class actions against GAF concerning its fiberglass shingles. The complaints allege that GAF designed, manufactured, advertised, warranted and sold defective fiberglass shingles that were not in compliance with applicable testing standards, and without taking any steps to cure the problem(s) or honor its warranties. Defective shingles not only must be replaced, but can cause damage to the structure of the house.

For additional information, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or Brendan Thompson at 202-789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or brendant@cuneolaw.com.

UPDATE: On April 22, 2015, the District of South Carolina granted final approval of a proposed settlement of over $200 million. The class of approximately six million individuals, one of the largest home building material classes ever, allows for claims to be made for up to seven years. For more information or to file a claim, please visit: http://www.roofsettlement.com

Lumber Liquidators Flooring

Dana Gold v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case. No. 3:14-cv-05373-TEH (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California).

Our firm, along with co-counsel, has brought a case against Lumber Liquidator, Inc. alleging that certain flooring products that it developed, marketed and sold are defective. Alleged defects include cracking, splitting, scratching and general deterioration.  Our firm is also investigating flooring that the company sold that contains allegedly hazardous levels of formaldehyde.

If you are having a problem with your flooring, or have other information pertaining to this investigation, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or Brendan Thompson at (202)789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or brendant@cuneolaw.com.

UPDATE: On November 10, 2015, the Court appointed Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP as co-lead counsel in the case. On November 30, 2015, the Court, ruling on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, sustained the majority of the claims contained in the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. In addition, the Court denied the Defendant’s Motion to Strike and its request for Judicial Notice. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a Nationwide Class with four subclasses plead in the alternative for the states of California, New York, Illinois, and West Virginia.

Debit Card Overdraft Fees

In Re: HSBC Bank USA, N.A. Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litigation, Case No. 2:13-md-02451-ADS-AKT (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York); In re HSBC Bank U.S.A., N.S., Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, Case No. 650562/2011 (New York Supreme Court).

Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, and three other firms, were appointed as Co-Interim Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs challenging HSBC Bank USA, N.A.’s practices of reordering debit transactions from high-to-low and not processing transactions chronologically in order to increase the bank’s overdraft fee revenue by millions of dollars per year.  Plaintiffs alleged that HSBC unlawfully concealed these procedural changes from customers.

After overcoming a motion to dismiss and conducting extensive discovery, plaintiffs’ counsel filed class certification papers in federal court on January 30, 2015.  While that class certification motion was pending, HSBC reached a settlement with the parties to the parallel but previously dormant action in the New York state court.  On February 10, 2016, the Federal Plaintiffs and all parties to the State Action reached a settlement agreement and a hearing on the Motion for Final Approval of the Proposed Class Action Settlement was held on April 6, 2016.

For additional information, please contact attorneys Jonathan Cuneo or Jennifer E. Kelly at 202-789-3960, or by email at jonc@cuneolaw.com or jkelly@cuneolaw.com.

APPLE STORAGE LITIGATION

Orshan v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 5:14-cv-05659 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California).

This case concerns allegations that the iOS 8 operating system on certain Apple devices consumes a substantial portion of the total available storage on the devices.  The complaint asserts that Apple provides consumers materially less storage than they are promised and then aggressively markets iCloud storage space, which it sells on a monthly basis.  The case concerns both devices with iOS 8 pre-installed and devices in which iOS 8 is installed by way of update. Click here to read the complaint.

The motion to dismiss is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a ruling from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

For additional information, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or William Anderson at 202-789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or wanderson@cuneolaw.com

CertainTeed – Defective Cement Fiberboard Siding

In re: CertainTeed Fiber Cement Siding Litigation, MDL No. 11-2270 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania).

We have joined other firms and brought several class action lawsuits alleging that “CertainTeed WeatherBoard” siding is prone to cracking, surface flaking, warping, shrinking and crumbling. In addition, our lawsuits allege that some of this product looks like “water saturated cardboard” when exposed to rain and water. Additionally, our lawsuits allege that CertainTeed has failed to honor the terms of its warranty, and refused to repair, replace or refinish their defective siding as promised.

Consumers purchase expensive cement siding to protect and beautify their homes. These apparent defects are problematic and result in trouble and expense for the homeowners involved.

For additional information, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or Brendan Thompson at 202-789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or brendant@cuneolaw.com.

UPDATE: On March 20, 2014, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted final approval of a $103 million all cash settlement. For details, go to certainteedshinglesettlement.com

Deceptive Energy Contracts

Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP has filed lawsuits against third party energy suppliers Ambit Energy, LLC, Viridian Energy, LLC, Smart One Energy, LLC, HIKO Energy, LLC, and XOOM Energy, LLC in New Jersey, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina.

The complaints allege that the Defendants engage in deceptive bait-and-switch sales models with variable rate customers. These companies represent to potential customers that if they switch from their local utility companies or other energy suppliers, they will receive low introductory rates on their energy bills followed by competitive market based rates and savings. However, shortly after consumers switch their energy supply, their electric and gas rates actually increase, causing substantially higher energy bills.

If you have switched to a third party energy provider with the promise of energy cost savings, only to have the price you pay for electricity or gas increase substantially, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or Beatrice Yakubu at (202) 789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or byakubu@cuneolaw.com.

In re Whole Foods Market, Inc., Greek Yogurt Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

Knox, et al. v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-13185 (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts).

This case concerns false representations of nutritional information by Defendants regarding 365 Greek Yogurt. Specifically, despite representations that the yogurt at issue contains only two grams of sugar per serving, an investigation by Consumer Reports found that in six different tests the actual sugar content averaged 11.4 grams of sugar per serving—nearly six times the stated amount.

Motion to dismiss briefing is complete, and this multi-district litigation is ongoing.

For additional information, please contact attorney William Anderson at 202-789-3960, or by email at wanderson@cuneolaw.com.

TimberTech

Gornstein v. TimberTech, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-12409 (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts).

This case concerns defective XLM decking manufactured by TimberTech and sold throughout the United States. The defective decking, made of all polyvinyl chloride (PVC), is subject to fading (turning white) and scorching (turning black), among other problems. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to honor their warranties to customers to replace decks manufactured with defective and substandard materials.

A proposed settlement has received preliminary approval from the court, and the final approval hearing is scheduled to occur on August 4, 2016.

For additional information, please contact attorney William Anderson at 202-789-3960, or by email at wanderson@cuneolaw.com.

Yamaha F Series Outboard Motors

Williams, et al. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., Case No. 2:13-cv-05066-BRO-VBK (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California).

This case concerns severe corrosion in certain first generation Yamaha F series outboard motors. The defect in the motors results in severe corrosion in the dry exhaust portion of the motor, which can ultimately lead to engine failure. The complaint alleges that Defendant knew of the defect for years and failed to inform consumers, while simultaneously profiting from sale of a kit that contained the exact defective parts at issue. Despite the fact that growth of the corrosion is ongoing, but hidden, during the warranty period, Defendant has refused to honor its products and provide repair or replacement for its consumers.

The case was dismissed and is now on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.

For additional information, please contact attorney William Anderson at 202-789-3960, or by email at wanderson@cuneolaw.com.

Concussions – Professional Wrestling Case

Evan Singleton et al. v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-1074-VLB (U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut).

Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, along with several other firms, filed cases on behalf of current and former wrestlers who have routinely suffered head trauma through their participation in professional wrestling. The cases, which were ultimately consolidated in the District of Connecticut, allege that these wrestlers have suffered irreversible brain trauma with devastating consequences, due to inadequate care, misleading reassurances and failure to provide important information.  The cases seek compensation and resources for the wrestlers’ continuing medical treatment.

After significant and complex motion practice, as well as extensive discovery, the cases currently remain on track for dispositive motion practice and trial.

For more information, please contact Charles LaDuca, Michael Flannery, or Katherine Van Dyck at (202) 789-3960.

The Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws (COSAL)

We are the Washington, DC representatives for COSAL, which was established in 1986 to promote and support the enactment, preservation and enforcement of a strong body of antitrust laws in the United States. It is the only organization in Washington, D.C. that is dedicated to lobbying for strong antitrust laws and effective private enforcement. Recently, COSAL worked to make changes to the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act so that companies that conspire to fix prices can be held accountable by the victims of their wrongdoing; and to stop the practice of brand name pharmaceutical companies reaching settlements with generic drug companies to keep generics off the market. Currently, COSAL is supporting the Arbitration Fairness Act, which would prohibit the enforcement of mandatory, binding arbitration clauses in consumer, employment, civil rights and antitrust lawsuits.

Asbestos Cancer Victims Rights Campaign

CGL is working with patients suffering from asbestos-related diseases and their families to defeat federal legislation that would intrude on their privacy rights and provide special advantages to the companies that were responsible for the asbestos exposure.

For additional information, please contact Pamela Gilbert at (202)789-3960, or by email at pamelag@cuneolaw.com.

The Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws (COSAL)

CGL is the Washington, DC representative for COSAL, which was established in 1986 to promote and support the enactment, preservation and enforcement of a strong body antitrust laws in the United States. It is the only organization in Washington, DC that is dedicated to lobbying for strong antitrust laws and effective private enforcement.

For additional information, please contact Pamela Gilbert at (202)789-3960, or by email at pamelag@cuneolaw.com.

MW Windows Litigation

Gulbankian et al. v. MW Manufacturers, Inc., Case No. No. 1 : 10-CV-10392-RWZ (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts).

Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, along with several other firms, filed lawsuits against MW Manufacturers, Inc. (“MW”) on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of homeowners who have purchased MW’s Freedom and V-Wood series windows. Plaintiffs alleged that the windows were subject to premature failure. After several years of intense litigation in the District of Massachusetts, including full briefing of Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, the parties reached agreement on a settlement through mediation. The court granted final approval of the settlement on December 29, 2014.

Details about the settlement and the claims process can be found at the settlement website:  http://www.mwmanufacturersvinylcladwindowsettlement.com/. If you are have any questions, please contact attorney Michael Flannery at (202) 789-3960, or by email at mflannery@cuneolaw.com.

Mastic Home Exteriors – Defective Oasis Decking Products

Pagliaroni et al. v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 12-cv-10164-DJC, (U.S. District Court for the District of  Massachusetts).

We have brought a class action against Mastic Home Exteriors (formerly known as Alcoa Home Exteriors) and its parent, Plygem Industries concerning allegedly defective Oasis decking products.

If you are having a problem with your Trimboard products, or have other information pertaining to this investigation, please contact attorney Brendan Thompson at (202)789-3960, or by email at brendant@cuneolaw.com.

Louisiana Pacific Trimboard

Bristol Village, Inc. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation et al., Case. No. 1:12-cv-00263, (U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York).

We filed actions in North Carolina, Ohio and New York on behalf of persons and entities that own or owned homes, apartments, office buildings, or other structures in which ABTCO composite-wood Trimboard (“Trimboard”) is or was installed. We allege that the Defendant sold into the stream of commerce defective Trimboard (which is composed of wood scraps, glue, and resin and marketed and sold for use as fascias, soffits, window casing and other exterior applications) for which it had promised a warranty of 10 years, but which will fail long before the warranted life.

If you are having a problem with your Trimboard products, or have other information pertaining to this investigation, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or Michael Flannery at (202)789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or mflannery@cuneolaw.com.

IKO – Defective Organic Roofing Shingles

In re: IKO Roofing Shingle Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2104 (U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois).

We are the chair of the executive committee in these nationwide class actions against Canadian shingle manufacture, IKO Manufacturing Inc. (“IKO”). The suits allege that IKO designs, manufactures, advertises and sells various defective roofing shingle products that fail to perform as marketed and that IKO knowingly and intentionally concealed these defects. The suits also allege that IKO had no intention of honoring its shingles various warranties.

UPDATE: On July 2, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated a decision by the Central District of Illinois declining to certify the class and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. 

If you are having a problem with your IKO shingles, or have other information pertaining to this investigation, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or Brendan Thompson at (202)789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or brendant@cuneolaw.com.

CertainTeed – Defective Organic Roofing Shingles

In re: CertainTeed Corp. Roofing Shingle Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1817, (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania).

We were co lead counsel in this class action lawsuit, which settled for almost $700 million. The suit alleged that CertainTeed’s organic shingles failed to perform as marketed and that CertainTeed knowingly and intentionally concealed defects. The suit also alleged that CertainTeed had no intention of providing the services set forth in their warranties for their roofing shingles.

For additional information, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca at (202) 789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com.

UPDATE: In 2011, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted final approval of the settlement valued at approximately $700 million. The settlement class period is ongoing. For more information on this settlement go to certainteedshinglesettlement.com

Owens Corning – Defective Fiberglass Roofing Shingles

Jaime Gonzalez, et al. v. Owens Corning, et al., Case No. 09-1567, (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania).

We are co-lead counsel in a nationwide class action against Owens Corning. The case alleges that Owens Corning designed, manufactured, advertised, sold and warranted defective fiberglass shingles without taking any steps to cure the problem(s) or honor its warranties. Defective shingles not only must be replaced, but can cause damage to the structure of the house.

On May 18, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the company’s past bankruptcy did not foreclose potential class members’ claims and remanded the case to the Western District of Pennsylvania for further proceedings. In February 2013, we filed additional cases against Owens Corning in the states of California and Texas.

If you are having a problem with your Owens Corning shingles, or have other information pertaining to this investigation, please contact attorney Brendan Thompson at 202-789-3960, or by email at brendant@cuneolaw.com.

Chinese Drywall Litigation

Our firm, along with co-counsel, brought a series of cases in Federal and State courts across the country challenging the use of defective Chinese drywall in residential construction. The defective drywall emits, among other things, sulfur compounds that cause significant physical damage to the affected homes by corroding the electrical, plumbing and HVAC systems. All of our cases were centralized before a single Federal Judge in Louisiana who is presiding over hundreds of cases.  Settlements have been reached with some Defendants, but litigation is ongoing as to others.

If you have any questions regarding this litigation, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or William Anderson at (202) 789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or wanderson@cuneolaw.com.

Uponor – Defective F1906 Plumbing Fittings

George v. Uponor, Inc. et al., Case. No. 0:12-cv-00249, (U.S. District Court for the district of Minnesota).

We have brought a class action against Uponor alleging that it designs and sells defective Yellow Brass Fittings and components made from high zinc content brass that were defectively designed and prematurely corrode when drinking water runs through them.  The lawsuit also claims that when the high zinc content brass is exposed to this water over time, it becomes blocked, cracks, weeps, seeps, and/or leaks and may affect water supply.  Information available to the Plaintiffs suggests that Uponor’s Yellow Brass Fittings may have been installed in hundreds of thousands of homes and buildings.

UPDATE: On September 9, 2015, the District Court for Minnesota granted final approval of a common fund settlement.  The fund will reimburse purchasers for eligible previous repairs and/or future repairs or replacement costs relating to leaks or flow issues along with related property damage.  Uponor will also provide an extended warranty for eligible property damage and water flow issues.  The maximum Uponor will pay for the Settlement is $21 million. For more information about our settlement, please check out the settlement website at: https://brassfittingsclass.com/nationwide/mainpage/Home.aspx

If you have any questions regarding this litigation, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or Brendan Thompason at (202) 789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or brendant@cuneolaw.com.

Zurn – Defective Plumbing Systems

In re: Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1958, (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota).

We were chair of the executive committee in this nation-wide class action which comprised of homes and business-owners, who brought several class actions against Zurn Pex, Inc. and Zurn Industries LLP (“Zurn”) concerning alleged defects associated with its cross-linked Pex tubing and brass fittings plumbing systems. The plaintiffs charged that Zurn not only designed and manufactured a faulty product, but that it also marketed and sold it without disclosing the risks to consumers, and have failed to honor its product’s “worry-free” 25-year warranty.

For additional information, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or Brendan Thompson at 202-789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or brendant@cuneolaw.com.

UPDATE: On February 27, 2013, the District Court for Minnesota granted final approval of the settlement valued at approximately $30 million. For more information about our settlement, please check out the settlement website at: www.plumbingfittingsettlement.com.

Maibec – Defective Wood Siding

Ilene Stern, et al. v. Maibec Inc., Civil Action No. 11-3951, (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey).

We have brought a class action lawsuit against a Canadian wood siding manufacturer, Maibec, Incorporated in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Newark, NJ. The suit alleges that the siding, which is used to clad the outside of homes and offices, prematurely fails and that the Defendant does not honor its warranties.

If you are having a problem with your Maibec siding, or have other information pertaining to this investigation, please contact attorney Charles LaDuca at (202)789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com.

Gentek – Defective Steel Siding

Eliason et al. v. Gentek Building Products, et al., Case. No. 1:10-cv-2093 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio).

We are co-lead counsel in a nationwide class action against Gentek Building Products, Inc., a leading manufacture of vinyl, aluminum and steel siding products.

Our lawsuits allege that Gentek steel and aluminum siding was produced with a defect that makes it prone to chipping, cracking, breaking, peeling and/or fading prematurely. Such defects can be expensive to repair and reduce the value of a home significantly. Additionally, our lawsuits allege that Gentek has failed to honor the terms of its warranty, and refused to repair, replace or refinish their defective siding as promised.

For additional information, please contact attorney Charles LaDuca at (202) 789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com.

UPDATE: August 1, 2013, the District Court for Northern District of Ohio granted final approval of a settlement relating to all claims in this lawsuit.  For further information, go to: www.steelsidingsettlement.com.

James Hardie – Defective Cement Fiberboard Siding

In re: HardiPlank Fiber Cement Siding Litigation, MDL No. 2359, (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota).

We are co-counsel in several class actions against James Hardie concerning siding products that are alleged to be defective. Signs of defect include: cracking, warping, peeling, shrinking, and pulling away from fasteners. Our lawsuits allege manufacturing and design defects for the following product lines:

  • Hardie Fiber-Cement
  • HARDIEPLANK HZ10
  • HARDIEPANEL HZ10
  • HARDIESHINGLE HZ10
  • HARDIESOFFIT HZ10

Additionally, our lawsuits allege that James Hardie has failed to honor the terms of its 50-year warranty.

Consumers purchase expensive cement siding to protect and beautify their homes. These apparent defects are very problematic, and result in trouble and expense for the homeowners involved.

If you are having a problem with your James Hardie siding product, or have other information pertaining to this investigation, please contact attorneys Charles LaDuca or Brendan Thompson at (202) 789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com or brendant@cuneolaw.com.

CSST (CORRUGATED STAINLESS STEEL TUBING) LITIGATION

We have filed class actions against CSST (Corrugated Stainless Steel Tubing) manufacturers Omega Flex, Incorporated, Ward Manufacturing, LLC and Titeflex Corporation in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the states of Maryland, Florida and Texas.

The complaints allege that the Defendants improperly designed and manufactured CSST and failed to properly test its resistance to lightning strikes. CSST’s thin walls are susceptible to perforation caused by lightning strikes, which causes fires, damage to and detonation of residential structures, and creates a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or personal injury.

If you have CSST in your home or business, or have other information pertaining to this investigation, please contact attorney Charles LaDuca at (202) 789-3960 or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com.

Living Social Gift Certificate Litigation

We have filed several lawsuits across the country against Living Social, a Washington, D.C.-based company, for violating state and federal laws that prohibit or limit expiration dates on gift certificates. Since it opened, Living Social has sold and issued millions of gift certificates for various products and services with expiration dates that were much shorter than required by law.

For additional information, please contact attorney Charles LaDuca at 202-789-3960 or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com.

UPDATE: A settlement of more than $7.5 million was approved by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Groupon Gift Certificate Litigation

Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP has filed federal lawsuits in the District of Columbia, Minnesota and Illinois against gift certificate wholesaler Groupon, Inc. (“Groupon”) for violating state and federal laws that prohibit or limit expiration dates on gift certificates. For several years, Groupon has sold and issued thousands of gift certificates for various products and services with expiration dates. Pursuant to state and federal law, companies cannot sell gift certificates subject to an expiration date of any kind. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits reasonably seek to recover the money they lost as a result of Groupon’s alleged illegal conduct, money for the expected value of the gift certificates they purchased, and prevent Groupon and its retail partners from selling gift certificates with illegal expiration dates.

For additional information, please contact Charles LaDuca or William Anderson at 202-789-3960, or by email at charles@cuneolaw.com.

UPDATE: A proposed settlement of $8.5 million was approved by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The settlement is currently on appeal.

Safe Rental Cars

CGL, working on behalf of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety (CARS), an auto safety group based in California, led the lobbying effort to enact the “Raechel and Jacqueline Houck Safe Rental Car Act,” which prohibits rental car companies from renting or selling vehicles in their fleets that are subject to a safety recall until the vehicles have been fixed. In 2004, Raechel and Jacqueline Houck were killed when their rental car lost its steering, causing them to run head-on into a tractor-trailer. The car was under a safety recall for the steering defect, but had not been repaired. The Safe Rental Car Act is the first significant expansion of the federal auto recall system in 40 years.  The law went into effect on June 1, 2016.

For additional information, please contact Pamela Gilbert at (202)789-3960, or by email at pamelag@cuneolaw.com.

AUTO PARTS PRICE-FIXING ANTITRUST LITIGATION

In re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 12-md-02311 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan).

CGL (Jonathan Cuneo) is interim co-lead counsel for auto dealers in 29 states and D.C. seeking compensation for auto parts bid rigging and price fixing. The auto parts involved include, among others, wire harnesses, instrument panel clusters, fuel senders, heater control panels, bearings, occupant safety restraint systems, radiators, windshield wipers, alternators, anti-vibration rubber parts and starters. There are now 30 such cases.

The US Department of Justice Antitrust Division, conducting what it deems the largest international antitrust investigation in its history, has issued criminal information against numerous makers of auto parts, ranging from wire harnesses, to instrument panels, to air bags. A number of firms have already pleaded guilty and paid huge fines. Individual managers have pleaded guilty also, and some have received jail sentences. Cases have been filed for direct purchasers of such parts, for auto dealers, and for consumers who purchased cars or replacement parts. The damage claims have been grouped in to separate cases, depending on what parts of cars were involved, but all cases were transferred to Federal District Court in Detroit, Michigan. Presiding Judge Battani has appointed CGL’s Jonathan Cuneo, along with prominent lawyers from Mississippi and Minnesota, as co-lead counsel for named car dealers and possible classes of all dealers in the 31 American jurisdictions that allow indirect purchaser victims of price-fixing to obtain damage awards.

Auto dealers have received final approval of a nearly $60 million settlement agreement, and $100 million in additional settlements are awaiting court consideration.

For additional information, please contact Jonathan Cuneo, Joel Davidow or Victoria Romanenko at (202) 789-3960, or by email at jonc@cuneolaw.com, joel@cuneolaw.com and vicky@cuneolaw.com.

NCAA

In re: NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, Civil Action No. 4:09-cv-01967 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California).

Our firm is involved in a class action involving thousands of former Division 1 men’s basketball and football players who allege the NCAA violated federal antitrust law, by unlawfully preventing former players from receiving any compensation related to the use of their images and likeness.

On August 8, 2014, the United States District Court entered judgment on behalf of plaintiff. The case is now on appeal.

For additional information, please contact Daniel Cohen at (202) 789-3960 or by email at danielc@cuneolaw.com.

x close window Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP
SUBMIT
disclaimer