Header graphic for print

Class Action Blog

Tp provide current legal information relating to class action lawsuits, including consumer fraud, consumer protection, securities and antitrust class actions

Court Certifies Drivers’ Claims Against PJPA (Papa John’s Pizza)

The Court conditionally certified Meiselman Packman Nealon Scialabba & Baker P.C.’s federal lawsuit against PJPA, LLC a Papa John’s Pizza franchisee in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.  As a result of the Court’s ruling, all delivery drivers who worked for PJPA from March 13, 2011 through March 13, 2014 are eligible to join in this conditional class action.

If you are a delivery driver who worked for PJPA, click here to join our lawsuitwww.pjpadriverlawsuit.com  You can also visit the website or contact us anytime with questions.

We are proud to represent delivery drivers who are not properly reimbursed for their driving expenses.  If you are a delivery driver and you believe your employer may not be properly reimbursing you for car-related expenses, please contact us to discuss your legal options.   

 

McDonald’s And Other Food Chains May Be Underpaying Employees

Many fast food restaurants require their employees to purchase uniforms and/or clean their uniforms at their own costs.  However, employees should be reimbursed for the cost of purchasing and cleaning their uniforms.  In a recent lawsuit against McDonald’s, for example, employees alleged that McDonald’s did not pay employees the costs of purchasing their uniforms and cleaning their uniforms.

Meiselman, Packman, Nealon, Scialabba & Baker P.C. is actively investigating a potential class action against fast food restaurants that do not pay their hourly employees for the cost of purchasing and cleaning their uniforms.  If you or someone you know works for a fast food restaurant that requires the employees to purchase and clean their uniforms, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

Tom’s Natural Toothpaste May Not Actually Be Natural

Consumers in the U.S. rely on labels that say “natural” when purchasing products such as toothpastes.  Consumers are even willing to pay extra money to buy products that are labeled “natural”.  Unfortunately, some companies deceive consumers into buying their toothpaste by labeling their toothpaste as “natural” when, in fact, they contain heavily processed chemical ingredients.

Tom’s of Maine Inc. was recently sued for allegedly misleading its customers into believing that its Tom’s toothpaste only contained natural ingredients when it contained sweetener xylitol and the cleaner compound sodium lauryl sulfate, both of which are heavily processed ingredients.

Meiselman, Packman, Nealon, Scialabba & Baker P.C. is actively investigating a potential class action against Tom’s of Maine, Inc.  If you or someone you know purchased Tom’s toothpaste, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

TD Bank Might (Still) Collect Illegal Overdraft Fees

Many consumers live paycheck to paycheck, especially in the last few years.  Unfortunately, the very sector that was partially responsible for the market meltdown continues to make money at consumers’ expense.  In March 2013, TD Bank paid $62 million to settle claims that it was charging illegal overdraft fees.  According to the lawsuit, the banks were manipulating checking account transactions by ordering deductions from largest to smallest so that larger transactions empty customers’ bank accounts quicker and smaller charges then trigger multiple overdraft fees.  Rather than rectifying the situation, however, a recent lawsuit has alleged that TD, unlike other banks, has continued to perpetrate this scheme against its customers.

Meiselman, Packman, Nealon, Scialabba & Baker P.C. is actively investigating a potential class action against TD Bank for illegal overdraft charges.  If you or someone you know uses TD Bank and incurred an overdraft fee, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

Nikon D600 Camera May Be Defective

From weddings to vacations, photographs document significant life events.  Consumers therefore rely on their cameras to function properly.  Unfortunately, it appears that some companies sell defective cameras and refuse to honor their warranties.  In a recent lawsuit against Nikon, for instance, consumers alleged that the “pro-level” D600 camera, which costs more than $2,000, ruins photographs with oil and dust spotting.  Nevertheless, the complaint claims that Nikon refuses to acknowledge the defect or honor its warranty, instead requiring its customers to send their cameras in for (reportedly ineffective) servicing. 

Meiselman, Packman, Nealon, Scialabba & Baker P.C. is actively investigating a potential class action against Nikon.  If you or someone you know purchased a Nikon D600 camera and experienced oil or dust spotting on your photos, please contact us to discuss your legal options.