Jul 10, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Roadside Assistance Technicians Not Properly Compensated – Lawsuit Alleges
On June 30, 2017, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. and co-counsel filed a class action and collective action lawsuit against Inman’s Auto Rescue of Fairfax, LLC of Manassas, VA.
The class action and collective action complaint alleges that defendant Inman’s Auto Rescue of Fairfax, LLC violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Maryland wage, hour, payment and collection laws for failure to pay proper minimum wage and overtime wages for all hours of work performed by its Roadside Assistant Technicians who provide services to motorists in the mid-Atlantic region, which includes Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., whose vehicles have suffered a mechanical failure that leaves the operator stranded, such as getting a flat tire, being locked out of their car, running out of fuel, or a dead battery.
A Failure to Pay Proper Minimum Wage and Overtime Wages
Defendant Inman’s Auto Rescue of Fairfax, LLC, according to the complaint, failed to pay proper minimum wage and overtime wages for all hours of work performed by its Roadside Assistance Technicians by misclassifying its Roadside Assistance Technicians as “independent contractors” when they should be classified as employees.
As alleged in the complaint, defendant Auto Rescue of Fairfax, LLC is part of a large, nationwide network of affiliated roadside service companies that are owned and controlled by Michael K. Inman through his ownership of and control over a web of related entities, including Inman Management Services, Inc., Inman’s Auto Rescue LP, Inman Holdings, Inc., and Inman Affiliates, LLC.
A copy of the class action and collective action complaint can be accessed by clicking here: Auto Rescue of Fairfax, LLC Class Action Complaint.
What can I do if I am a Roadside Assistance Technician?
If you are a Roadside Assistance Technician who works for the defendant, contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. You may be able to join the class action.
What is a Roadside Assistance Technician?
Roadside Assistant Technicians, also known as Auto Rescue Technicians, Roadside Assistance Workers, Roadside Service Workers, Roadside Technicians, are on-call workers dispatched to assist disabled vehicles. Calls for roadside assistance are typically routed through a call center, where dispatchers receive customer calls and alert Roadside Service Technicians that they are needed.
Typical Roadside Assistance Technician responsibilities include jumping car batteries, unlocking vehicles, changing tires, and delivering fuel.
How do I know if I have been misclassified as an independent contractor or an employee?
According to the Department of Labor (DOL), “[m]isclassification” refers to a worker who is an employee under the law but is incorrectly classified as something other than an employee (usually an independent contractor). Most federal and state labor laws protect workers who meet the laws’ definitions of “employee.”
Further, according to the DOL:
[w]orkers misclassified as independent contractors may miss out on:
- minimum wage and overtime pay,
- protections from anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws,
- workers’ compensation if injured on the job,
- unemployment insurance,
- health and safety protections on the job, and
- employer-sponsored benefits.
What Can I Do If I Feel I Have Been Misclassified as an Independent Contractor?
If you feel you have been misclassified as an independent contractor or would like to learn more information about the pending lawsuit, please complete the form to the right or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected]; John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], or send an e-mail to [email protected].
The Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, negligence, false claims, deception, data breaches or whose rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws have been violated.
Jul 10, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Kehoe Law Firm’s securities attorneys are investigating potential claims on behalf of investors of Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. (NASDAQ: OCUL) regarding allegations that the company misled investors about issues with its manufacturing and testing procedures.
More Than 25% Stock Drop on Allegations of Ongoing Ocular Therapeutix Manufacturing Problems
Ocular Therapeutix disclosed on May 5, 2017 that it received a Form 483 from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration containing “inspectional observations” related to the Company’s manufacturing and analytical testing procedures.
On July 6, 2017, shortly before the end of the trading day, Seeking Alpha published an article reporting that the Ocular Therapeutix management had misled investors regarding the severity of ongoing manufacturing issues and downplayed the significance of FDA communications regarding these issues.
Following this news, Ocular’s share price fell 6% on July 6, 2017, and plummeted an additional 25% on July 7, 2017 to $7.12, causing significant harm to investors.
Do You Have Ocular Therapeutix Losses?
If you purchased or otherwise acquired shares in Ocular Therapeutix and would like to speak privately with a securities attorney to learn more about the investigation, fill out the form to the right or contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected]; Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected]; or send an e-mail to [email protected].
About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
The Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches. Together, the partners of the Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. have spent more than 30 years prosecuting precedent-setting securities and financial fraud cases in federal and state courts on behalf of institutional and individual clients.
Jun 20, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Dish Network – “Do Not Call Registry Means Do Not Call”
A June 8, 2017 FTC Business Blog report, “Court orders $280 million from Dish Network, largest ever Do Not Call penalty” reported:
“. . . a record-setting win for America’s consumers and a resounding affirmation that the Do Not Call Registry means DO NOT CALL. Eight years of tenacious litigation by the Department of Justice, the FTC, and the Attorneys General of California, Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio has resulted in a $280 million civil penalty against Colorado-based satellite TV provider Dish Network. The ruling imposes additional remedies that emphasize just how seriously companies should take Telemarketing Sales Rule compliance.
Dish [Network] marketed its services directly through its own telemarketers and vendors, and through authorized dealers and retailers – what it called its Order Entry Program. Those companies pitched Dish [Network] programming to consumers, with Dish [Network] completing the sale.
Among other things, the lawsuit alleged that Dish [Network] initiated or caused others to initiate calls to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry. Dish [Network] vigorously defended its conduct in court, but after hearing the evidence, a federal judge ruled that Dish was liable for more than 66 million calls that violated the Do Not Call, entity-specific, and abandoned call provisions of the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule. The Court also held that Dish [Network] violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and multiple state laws.
Although “Dish [Network] has minimized the significance of its own errors in direct telemarketing and steadfastly denied any responsibility for the actions of its Order Entry Retailers,” the Court found Dish culpable both for its direct calls and for illegal calls made through its dealers. As the Court held, “Dish [Network] initially hired Order Entry Retailers based on one factor, the ability to generate activations. Dish [Network] cared about very little else. As a result, Dish [Network] created a situation in which unscrupulous sales persons used illegal practices to sell Dish Network programming any way they could.”
Dish Network – The Court Explains Its Concern & The $280 Million Penalty
The FTC’s blog report further stated:
In explaining the $280 million civil penalty, the Court ruled that “the injury to consumers, the disregard for the law, and the steadfast refusal to accept responsibility require a significant and substantial monetary award.” In response to the company’s objection to the dollar amount, the Court concluded that “Dish’s plea of poverty borders on the preposterous.”
The Court expressed particular concern about the company’s attitude toward people who complained about unwanted calls: “Dish’s denial of responsibility and lack of regard for consumers are deeply disturbing and support the inference that it is reasonably likely that Dish will allow future illegal calls absent government pressure.”
“[T]o keep Dish’s marketing personnel from reverting to their practice of trying to get around the rules,” the Court imposed four notable injunctive provisions – and they come with teeth:
- Dish will have to demonstrate that the company and its “primary retailers” – the order defines that term – are complying with the Safe Harbor Provisions of the TSR and have made no pre-recorded calls during the five years preceding the order’s effective date. “If Dish fails to prove that it meets this requirement, it will be barred from conducting any outbound telemarketing for two years, and if Dish fails to prove that the Primary Retailers meet this requirement, Dish shall be barred from accepting orders from such Primary Retailer for two years.”
- Dish must hire a telemarketing compliance expert to prepare a plan to ensure that the company and its primary retailers are honoring telemarketing laws and the Court’s order.
- The federal and state plaintiffs can ask the Court to approve unannounced inspections of the facilities and records of Dish or its primary retailers. In addition, for a ten-year period, twice a year Dish must send telemarketing compliance material to the federal and state plaintiffs, including all outbound telemarketing call records.
- Whether acting directly or through authorized telemarketers or retailers, Dish is prohibited from violating the TSR.
An injunction applies just to the company in question, of course, but businesses can glean compliance tips from the Dish litigation.
Keep your own house in order and watch what others are doing. The scope of the Telemarketing Sales Rule is broad. If you don’t want to be called to answer for TSR violations, establish effective monitoring and compliance programs that apply in-house and to people or companies that market your products.
Take consumer complaints seriously. Dish received so many complaints about one company that its Legal Department prepared a standard letter that conveyed, in the words of the Court, “go away, it’s not our problem, go after Satellite Systems.” When people are riled enough to contact you directly with a complaint, evaluate what they have to say and adjust your practices accordingly.
Courts are free to impose remedies that exceed what parties may agree to in a settlement. Dish argued that civil penalties were lower in some recent TSR settlements, but the Court rejected that apples-to-oranges comparison: “These settlements are worth little or no consideration in the calculations of civil penalties in this case. Parties who settle negotiate a settlement sum to avoid the time and costs of litigation. The parties also negotiate a settlement to avoid the risk of a judgment in a fully litigated matter.”
State and federal law enforcers are united – and dogged – in the fight against illegal telemarketing. Litigation is rarely the first choice of government agencies, but if companies prefer to go to trial, consumer protectors will see them in court. What’s more, we’re united in our commitment to effective Do Not Call enforcement. In its findings, the Court concluded “that at least some in Dish management do not believe that Dish really did anything wrong or harmed anyone with these millions and millions of illegal calls.” Federal and state law enforcers disagree – and we think the people who placed 226 million numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry are on our side.
The Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, negligence, false claims, deception or data breaches.
Jun 19, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Hyundai Steering Mechanism Class Action Lawsuit Filed
Hyundai Accent & Hyundai Elantra (Model Years 2013-2016)
On June 8, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed against Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai) in United States District Court, Central District of California, on behalf of a class of owners of 2013-2016 Hyundai Accent and Hyundai Elantra due to a factory-installed, faulty steering mechanism in the vehicles.
According to the class action complaint:
A defect in Hyundai’s steering mechanism causes the power steering to stop working suddenly, causing the wheel to lock or become difficult or impossible to turn at all.
The faulty steering mechanism is found on at least the following models: Hyundai Accent (model years 2013-2016) and Hyundai Elantra (model years 2013-2016) . . . .”
Hyundai’s defective steering mechanism severely inhibits drivers’ ability to react to and/or avoid other cars, pedestrians, or obstacles.
The Vehicles’ steering defects have been the subject of a large number of consumer complaints.
Hyundai has long known about the problem but has not notified consumers. Previous Hyundai models had the same or a similar defect, which Hyundai was slow to acknowledge.
In 2016, Hyundai issued a recall concerning a similar defect in 2011 Sonata vehicles. The steering problem was caused by conflicting steering wheel input data which caused the power steering to turn off.
Further, according to the class action complaint:
Safe and functional power steering was material to . . . [c]lass members’ decisions to buy or lease the [subject] [v]ehicles . . . and [a] reasonable customer who purchases a vehicle that advertises power steering as a feature expects that feature to function properly. A reasonable consumer further expects and assumes that [Hyundai] will not sell vehicles with known safety defects, and will disclose any such defect to their customers.
NHTSA Consumer Complaints About Inadequate Steering Mechanisms
The complaint further states that [t]he database of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration . . . shows there are many detailed consumer complaints about the inadequate steering mechanisms of the [2013-2016 model year Hyundai Accent and Hyundai Elantra]. Additionally, the complaint alleges that [a]s of June 7, 2017, there were over 100 such complaints for the Elantra and 10 such complaints for the Accent.
What Can Hyundai Accent and Hyundai Elantra Vehicle Owners Do?
If you own a Hyundai Accent or Hyundai Elantra (Model Years 2013-2016) and would like to speak privately with an attorney to learn more information about this investigation, please complete the form to the right or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected]; John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], or send an e-mail to [email protected].
The Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, negligence, false claims, deception or data breaches.
Jun 5, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
On May 31, 2017, the Hon. Beverly Reid O’Connell, United States District Court of the Central District of California, appointed the Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. as Co-Lead Counsel on behalf of a putative class of those who either purchased or otherwise acquired NantHealth (NASDAQ:NH) securities pursuant or traceable to the company’s initial public offering (“IPO”) on or about June 2, 2016 or purchased NantHealth stock on the open market between June 2, 2016 and March 3, 2017, both dates inclusive.
In making the appointment, Judge O’Connell noted that the firms appointed lead counsel have “. . . significant securities class action litigation experience and have achieved highly favorable settlements for plaintiffs in previous actions.”
As previously posted, the Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired NantHealth, Inc. securities pursuant or traceable to NantHealth’s IPO on or about June 2, 2016 or on the open market between June 2, 2016 and March 3, 2017, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).
According to NantHealth, it is a transformational healthcare cloud-based IT company that purports to provide cloud-based platform solutions that converge science and technology through integrated clinical platform to provide actionable health information at the point of care for critical illnesses.
In September 2014, NantHealth’s founder and CEO, Patrick Soon-Shiong, announced a $12 million donation to the University of Utah in connection with an initiative to find genetic clues for the cause of diseases, including several cancers and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
On March 6, 2017, STAT, a news organization focused on medical industry reporting, published an article alleging that pursuant to the terms of Soon-Shiong’s donation to the University of Utah, the university was effectively required to spend $10 million on genetics analysis performed by NantHealth, an arrangement which enabled NantHealth to inflate by more than 50 percent the number of test orders it reported to investors in 2016. Also, the article quoted two tax experts stating that the deal “appeared to violate federal tax rules governing certain charitable donations” and “amount[ed] to indirect self-dealing by Soon-Shiong and his foundations.” A link to the article is available here.
Following this news, NantHealth’s share price fell $1.67, or 23.29%, to close at $5.50 on March 6, 2017.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Soon-Shiong funneled business to NantHealth through his donation to the University of Utah, pursuant to the contractual terms of which the university was effectively required to spend $10 million on genetics analysis performed by the Company; (ii) consequently, the number of test orders that NantHealth reported to investors was artificially inflated; (iii) the contracts governing Soon-Shiong’s donation to the university violated federal tax law; and (iv) as a result, NantHealth’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased NantHealth shares in or after the IPO, or are aware of any facts relating to this investigation, or you would like to learn more information about this investigation or pending class-action lawsuit, please complete the form to the right or contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected]; John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected], or send an e-mail to [email protected].
The Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches. Together, the partners of the Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. have spent more than 30 years prosecuting precedent-setting securities and financial fraud cases in federal and state courts on behalf of institutional and individual clients.
May 26, 2017 | Consumer Protection, Employment & Technology Archive
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against GM & Robert Bosch GMBH Over Diesel Truck Emissions
GM Sierra 2500HD, GM Sierra 3500HD, Chevy Silverado 2500HD & Chevy Silverado 3500HD
On May 25, 2017, a class action complaint was filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that
. . . General Motors (“GM”) promised when selling its popular Silverado and Sierra HD Vehicles—that its Duramax engines turned “heavy diesel fuel into a fine mist,” delivering “low emissions” that were a “whopping reduction” compared to the prior model and at the same time produced a vehicle with “great power.” GM claimed its engineers had accomplished a “remarkable reduction of diesel emissions.”
However, according to the complaint,
. . . this is not what GM delivered in the estimated 705,000 or more Silverado and Sierra diesels on the road. In contrast to GM’s promises, emissions testing has revealed that the Sierra and Silverado models emit levels of NOx many times higher than (i) their gasoline counterparts, (ii) what a reasonable consumer would expect, (iii) the Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum standards, and (iv) the levels set for the vehicles to obtain a certificate of compliance that allows them to be sold in the United States.
The Affected GM Vehicles
The affected vehicles which are the subject of the class action lawsuit are:
Model Years 2011-2016 GM Sierra 2500HD & GM Sierra 3500HD Diesel Trucks
Model Years 2011-2016 Chevy Silverado 2500HD and Chevy Silverado 3500HD Diesel Trucks
The complaint alleges that GM’s
. . . top selling Silverado and Sierra 2500HD vehicles emit far more pollution on the road than in the emission certification testing environment, and these vehicles exceed federal and state emission standards and employ at least three different “defeat devices” to turn down the emissions controls when the vehicle senses that it is not in the certification test cycle. A defeat device means an auxiliary emissions control device that reduces the effectiveness of the emission control system under conditions which may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and use.
Increased sales and thus increased profits drove GM to use at least these three defeat devices in its Duramax diesel engines. By reversing the traditional order of the exhaust treatment components and putting the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) in front of the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF), GM could obtain and market higher power and efficiency from its engines while still passing the cold-start emissions certification tests. This made GM’s trucks more appealing and competitive in the marketplace, driving up sales and profits.
To appeal to environmentally conscious consumers, GM markets its Silverado and Sierra Duramax vehicles as having low emissions, high fuel economy, and powerful torque and towing capacity. GM charges a premium of approximately $5,000 for diesel-equipped vehicles over comparable gas vehicles.
GM never disclosed to consumers that the Affected Vehicles may be “clean” diesels in very limited circumstances but are “dirty” diesels under most driving conditions. GM never disclosed to consumers that it programs its emissions systems to work only under certain conditions. GM never disclosed that it prioritizes engine power and profits over the environment. GM never disclosed that the Affected Vehicles’ emissions materially exceed the emissions from gasoline powered vehicles, that the emissions exceed what a reasonable consumer would expect from a “low emissions” vehicle, and that the emissions materially exceed applicable emissions limits in real-world driving conditions. And GM collected a premium for these trucks by selling them at thousands of dollars over the cost of a comparable gasoline powered truck.
Do You Own a Model Year 2011-2016 GM Sierra 2500HD, GM Sierra 3500HD, Chevy Silverado 2500HD or Chevy Silverado 3500HD Diesel Truck?
If so, your rights under federal law may have been violated. If you would like to speak privately with an attorney to contribute to or learn more about the investigation, please complete the form to the right or contact John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, [email protected]; or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches. Together, the partners of the Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. have spent more than 30 years prosecuting precedent-setting securities and financial fraud cases in federal and state courts on behalf of institutional and individual clients.
