Apr 13, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Is Making Consumers Aware of Entities Named As Defendants In Recently Filed Class Action Lawsuits Alleging Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, LLC
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff “received at least two telemarketing calls from Defendant [Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources].” The first call Plaintiff received was from (888) 717-3303, a telephone number which “[t]he application NomoRobo . . . has reported more than 10,000 calls from . . . as unwanted solicitations.” Additionally, the Plaintiff “did not provide his prior express written consent to receive the telemarketing calls at issue.” [Emphasis in original.]
Liturgical Publications, Inc., d/b/a LPI, and Other Unknown Defendants
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received an unsolicited fax advertisement from Liturgical Publications, Inc., d/b/a LPI, despite “no prior relationship with Defendant [LPI],” and no prior authorization by the Plaintiff to send Plaintiff fax advertisements. The telephone number on the alleged unsolicited fax advertisement, a copy of which was attached to the complaint, was (248) 877-7769.
Mercury Insurance Company, Auto Insurance Specialists, LLC and Quotelab, LLC, d/b/a Media Alpha
According to the complaint, “[t]he Plaintiff received at least 5 telemarketing calls concerning auto insurance coverage from Media Alpha on behalf of Mercury [Insurance Company] and [Auto Insurance Specialists] between March 10, 2020 and March 11, 2020, including at least 3 automated telemarketing calls (2 on March 10 and 1 on March 11).”
Mortgage Solutions of Colorado, LLC, d/b/a Mortgage Solutions Financial
According to the complaint, “[b]eginning in or around January 2020[,] Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number . . . in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant’s services.” Allegedly, “[o]n the first phone call to Plaintiff, there was a pre-recorded voice on the line. Plaintiff followed the prompts and was transferred to a live person. The live representative identified his company as Mortgage Solutions (Defendant).” The Plaintiff, according to the complaint, “did not possess Plaintiff’s ‘prior express consent’ to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system on his cellular telephone.”
Purple Innovation, Inc.
According to the complaint, “Defendant [Purple Innovation] transmitted or caused to be transmitted, by itself or through an intermediary or intermediaries, and without Plaintiff’s prior ‘express written consent,’ a text message.” The complaint described the text message Plaintiff allegedly received as follows:
Happy New Year! Don’t miss this sale! FREE Sheets + 2
Pillows when you purchase a mattress. Time to upgrade your sleep: https://prpl.cc/shop-mattresses [Emphasis added.]
R&H Industries, LLC, d/b/a Elite Solar Concepts, LLC
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received an autodialed call on his cell from Elite Solar. The call was from telephone number (602) 904-0857, and “[t]he purpose of the call was to sell a solar power system to Plaintiff.” Allegedly, the “Plaintiff never consented to receiving solicitation calls from Defendant [Elite Solar].”
Snow Joe, LLC
According to the complaint, Defendant “Snow Joe is a distributor of snow blowers, lawn mowers, and other tools,” which “markets its products to consumers using unsolicited, autodialed text messages.” The Plaintiff, allegedly, received the following unsolicited text message from 296-91 on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone:
SOR Technology, LLC
According to the complaint, SOR Technology did not have Plaintiff’s “prior express written consent to send her text message communications.” The complaint contained the following text of the message the Plaintiff allegedly received on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone from SOR Technology:
Thank you for joining us to help stomp out hunger by receiving your free & exclusisve travel website.
We have partnered with Manna Relief to serve a nutritious meal to a hungry child when a new travel portal is activated so thanks again.
Go to hURJ/..boQkiDg:;Jgo4tess com to access it. Username: [email protected]~m Password:LCKHY9NCXT
You should change it as soon as possible & start saving today! _ [Emphasis added.]
Typeform US, LLC
According to the complaint, Defendant Typeform sent an unsolicited text to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone. The text message the Plaintiff allegedly received was from telephone number (855) 757-1580 and described in the complaint as follows:
Add 20-30 listings to your pipeline today. Apply here: re7.club
Reply Stop to opt out [Emphasis added.]
The Plaintiff, allegedly, did not provide Defendant Typeform with prior express written consent to receive automated text messages, and the Plaintiff did not solicit Typeform’s business prior to receiving the unsolicited text.
Do You Believe You Are a Victim of Illegal Robocalls, Text Messages, “Junk” Faxes or Telemarketing Sales Calls?
If you have received illegal robocalls, text messages, “junk” faxes or telemarketing sales calls, you may be able to recover at least $500 for each illegal call, text or fax you received and, possibly, as much as $1,500 for each illegal call, text message or facsimile that was made either willfully or knowingly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To help evaluate your potential legal claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, please complete KLF’s confidential Robocall Questionnaire or, if you prefer to speak with an attorney, please complete the form above on the right, e-mail [email protected] or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal rights.
Apr 11, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Uber Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Uber Eats, For Alleged Violations of The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”)
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that a class action lawsuit was filed on April 10, 2020 against Uber Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Uber Eats (collectively, “Uber”), in United States District Court, Northern District of California.
According to the complaint, “. . . Uber Eats routinely contacts restaurant owners with automatic telephone dialing equipment to provide various advisements. However, due to its large scale of operations, Uber Eats regularly sends prerecorded messages to the cellular telephones of individuals who have no prior relationship with Uber Eats and never provided their cellular phone number to Uber Eats, in violation of the TCPA. In addition, these individuals who receive the phone calls are left with no means to opt of receiving the harassing robocalls.” [Emphasis added.]
Allegedly, “[o]n or around February 2020, Plaintiff began receiving unsolicited robocalls from Defendant [Uber] from various phone numbers to her wireless phone . . . for which Plaintiff provided no consent to call.” The complaint alleges that the “unsolicited robocalls pertain to an Uber Eats account which does not belong to Plaintiff,” as well as that “Plaintiff has never used an Uber vehicle or the Uber Eats service.”
The complaint contained the following examples of unsolicited robocall messages the Plaintiff received from Uber Eats over the past few months:
“Hi, this is Elise calling from Uber Eats. we wanted to let you know that your restaurant is currently unavailable to our customers. Please make sure that your iPad is turned on and you are logged into the Uber Eats app. If you are having issues, please contact our support team. Thanks.”
“Hi there, you have a new Uber Eats order waiting for you. Please accept the order on your Uber Eats tablet. If you are unable to accept the order please contact Uber Eats support. You can also call support to opt out of receiving these calls. Thank you.” [Emphasis added.]
Plaintiff, according to the complaint, “has been unable to opt out of receiving these calls as the support number requires a pin which Plaintiff does not have. Thus, the opt out method provided is useless for individuals, like Plaintiff, who are receiving these calls and who are not account holders.”
Do You Believe You Are a Victim of Illegal Robocalls, Text Messages, “Junk” Faxes or Telemarketing Sales Calls?
If you have received illegal robocalls, text messages, “junk” faxes or telemarketing sales calls, you may be able to recover at least $500 for each illegal call, text or fax you received and, possibly, as much as $1,500 for each illegal call, text message or facsimile that was made either willfully or knowingly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To help evaluate your potential legal claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, please complete KLF’s confidential Robocall Questionnaire or, if you prefer to speak with an attorney, please complete the form above on the right, e-mail [email protected] or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal rights.
Apr 10, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Lawsuit Filed On Behalf of Wells Fargo Loan Adjusters – Alleged Unlawful Practices in Violation of State Wage and Hour Laws
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on March 31, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed against Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (collectively, “Wells Fargo”) in United States District Court, Northern District of California, on behalf of Plaintiff and all non-exempt Loan Adjusters presently or formerly employed by Wells Fargo in California.
According to the complaint, the Wells Fargo Defendants, [f]or at least four years prior to the filing of [the] action and through to the present . . . consistently maintained and enforced against Defendants’ nonexempt hourly Loan Adjusters, among others, the following unlawful practices and policies, in violation of California state wage and hour laws:
(a) Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay Class Member non-exempt hourly employees for all hours worked, whether regular time or overtime, and/or requiring them to work “off the clock” without compensation during the workday and workweek while pressuring them to perform tasks, duties, responsibilities, transferring products from one store to another, bag checks and other tasks;
(b) Defendants have had a consistent policy of requiring Class Members within the State of California, including Plaintiff, to work at least five (5) hours without a lawful meal period and failing to pay such employees one (1) hour of pay at the employees’ regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided, as required by California state wage and hour laws;
(c) Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to provide Class Members rest periods of at least ten (10) minutes for every shift over three and a half (3.5) hours and/or seven (7) hours worked or a major fraction thereof and failing to pay such employees one (1) hour of pay at the employees regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period is not provided, as required by California state wage and hour laws;
(d) Defendants have consistently denied Class Members the ability to take timely meal and rest breaks or take them at all and have failed to pay the class the premium wages due for these violations;
(e) Defendants failed to pay Class Member employees all wages due and payable twice each calendar month;
. . .
(g) Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of Class Members’ earned wages and work periods. [Emphasis added.]
Do You Believe Your Wage and Hour or Overtime Pay Rights Have Been Violated?
If you believe your wage and hour or overtime pay rights have been violated please either contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Partner Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], complete the form on the right or send an e-mail to [email protected] for a free, no-obligation case evaluation of your facts to determine whether your wage and hour or overtime rights have been violated and whether there is a basis for a class action lawsuit.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. prosecutes wage and hour class actions on a contingent-fee basis; thus, plaintiffs and the class members do not pay out-of-pocket attorney’s fees or litigation costs. Subject to court approval, attorney’s fees and litigation costs are derived from the recovery obtained for the class.
Apr 9, 2020 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. Is Making Consumers Aware of Entities Named As Defendants In Recently Filed Class Action Lawsuits Alleging Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Bankroll Capital, Inc.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was sent a fax offering a $250,000 line of credit. The “call back number” listed on the fax plaintiff received was (440) 965-6238. Allegedly, the Plaintiff, allegedly, does not have a business relationship with Defendant Bankroll Capital, and the Plaintiff did not give the Defendant consent to send the fax.
Call Tools, Inc. and Other Defendants, As of Yet Unknown
According to the complaint, Call Tools contacted the Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone “in an effort to sell or solicit services on behalf of Complete Care Health Solutions, Inc.” from (301) 763-6970. The Plaintiff, allegedly, “is not a customer of Defendant’s services and has never provided any personal information, including his cellular telephone number, to Defendant for any purpose whatsoever.”
Credit Control, LLC and Other Defendants, As of Yet Unknown
According to the complaint, Defendant Credit Control called the Plaintiff’s cell phone in an effort to collect a debt. Allegedly, the Plaintiff was not the debtor, and the Defendant did not have “Plaintiff’s ‘prior express consent’ to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on [Plaintiff’s] cellular telephone[].”
Get Together Inc.
According to the complaint, “Defendant [Get Together] transmitted, by itself or through an intermediary or intermediaries, multiple text messages to Plaintiff’s [cell phone] number and at least one text message (that was identical or substantially the same as those received by Plaintiff) to each member of the putative Class.” The complaint contained the following example of a text message sent to the Plaintiff from (772) 261-6878 “without Plaintiff’s prior ‘express written consent’”:
Hi there, your friend delivered you props. – See more on the IRL App! — hangIRLapp.co/DI/
Reply INFO for info, STOP to stop messages
Hyundai Motor America
According to the complaint, “Defendant [Hyundai Motor America] transmitted at least two . . . prerecorded telemarketing calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number,” which “introduced the caller as Hyundai Motors Corp.” Allegedly, “[a]t no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant [Hyundai Motor America] with his express consent to be contacted using prerecorded messages.”
Keim Enterprises, Inc.
According to the complaint, the “Plaintiff received 3 unsolicited calls from Century 21 Keim Realtors agents.” In November 2019, the Plaintiff, allegedly, received “a pre-recorded call from a Century 21 Keim Realtors agent on [Plaintiff’s] cell phone” and “an autodialed text message” from (484) 209-6077. The Plaintiff, according to the complaint, “does not have a relationship with Century 21 Keim Realtors and has never provided them his cell phone number or consent to receive calls from them.”
Do You Believe You Are a Victim of Illegal Robocalls, Text Messages, “Junk” Faxes or Telemarketing Sales Calls?
If you have received illegal robocalls, text messages, “junk” faxes or telemarketing sales calls, you may be able to recover at least $500 for each illegal call, text or fax you received and, possibly, as much as $1,500 for each illegal call, text message or facsimile that was made either willfully or knowingly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To help evaluate your potential legal claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, please complete KLF’s confidential Robocall Questionnaire or, if you prefer to speak with an attorney, please complete the form above on the right, e-mail [email protected] or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., [email protected], (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your potential legal rights.
Apr 9, 2020 | Securities Class Action Archive
Class Action Filed Against eHealth, Inc. On Behalf of EHTH Investors Who Purchased, Or Otherwise Acquired, eHealth Common Stock Between March 19, 2018 and April 7, 2020, Both Dates Inclusive – EHTH Investors Who Suffered Losses Encouraged To Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making investors aware that on April 8, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed against eHealth, Inc. (“eHealth” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: EHTH) on behalf all investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, eHealth common stock between March 19, 2018 and April 7, 2020, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to recover damages caused by the eHealth Defendants’ alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
According to the complaint the eHealth Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts to investors. Specifically, the eHealth Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors: (1) its highly aggressive accounting and modeling assumptions; (2) its skyrocketing rate of member churn, resulting from eHealth’s pursuit of low quality, loss-making growth; (3) its reliance on direct response television advertising, which attracts an unprofitable, high churn enrollee; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The complaint alleges that
[b]efore the markets opened on April 8, 2020, analyst Muddy Waters Research published a report in which it wrote that ‘EHTH’s highly aggressive accounting masks what we believe is a significantly unprofitable business.'[] Muddy Waters continued that ‘EHTH’s persistence assumptions in its LTV2[] model seem highly aggressive when compared to reality,’ that ‘[a]fter ASC 606 went into effect, member churn immediately skyrocketed,’ and that ‘EHTH is pursuing low quality, lossmaking growth while its LTVs are based on lower churn, pre-growth cohorts.’ Furthermore, Muddy Waters concluded that ‘the key driver of growth since 2018 has been EHTH’s reliance on Direct Response television advertising, which attracts an unprofitable, high churn enrollee. To generate this unprofitable growth, EHTH has been incinerating cash, which we expect it to continue to do until this value destruction slows down or stops. EHTH management is, in our view, running a massive stock promotion.‘
On this news, the stock plummeted from its April 7, 2020 closing price of $116.02 per share to an April 8, 2020 closing price of $103.20 per share, a one day drop of $12.82 or approximately 12%. [Emphasis in original and added.]
eHelath investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, EHTH securities during the Class Period and suffered losses are encouraged to contact either Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected], or John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], to discuss the class action lawsuit or potential legal claims.
