Pages

Saturday, February 28, 2015

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Purina's Beneful: Plaintiffs Claim Dog Food Poisoned, Killed Thousands Of Dogs | Initiative Legal Group

The article below is  reposted from medicaldaily.com and is by Susan Scutti. It reads as follows...

Pets aren’t just animals, they’re friends and family as every dog, cat, and rabbit-lover knows. For this reason, Nestle Purina Petcare Company should not be surprised by the strong emotions underlying a recent lawsuit. The class action suit filed in California by plaintiff Frank Lucido on Feb. 5 alleges Purina's Beneful is responsible for making thousands of dogs either seriously ill or causing them to die, according to Top Class Actions. Specifically, the suit concerns "kibble," which includes the popular Purina Beneful Original, Purina Beneful Healthy Weight, and Purina Beneful Healthy Smile, among many other sub-brands.
While the lawsuit is new, the actual complaint is rather old. In fact, on Consumer Affairs, dog owners have been saying for some time that Beneful has hurt and in some cases killed their beloved dogs. One owner of a “perfectly healthy” mixed terrier wrote, “She went from happy to sickly upon eating Beneful. ... I stop the food and bam, she was back to normal.” Another owner, after switching her dog to Beneful, wrote, “She seemed fine at first, but then I started noticing incontinence problems. A few weeks later she started becoming lethargic, then she started vomiting. … My dog so far has not died, but she is also still not healthy.”
Another dog owner fed his dog a single serving of Beneful with this result: “He was vomiting, diarrhea, lethargic, wheezing, and couldn't walk or eat. We rushed him to the vet where he was put on steroids, IV to re-hydrate, and antibiotics. He almost died. He was there for four days.”
In fact, more than 3,000 complaints have been posted online according to Frank Lucido v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company. The lawsuit further alleges the dogs “show consistent symptoms, including stomach and related internal bleeding, liver malfunction or failure, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, weight loss, seizures, bloating, and kidney failure.” Importantly, the suit asserts, “on information and belief,” that these illnesses and deaths were caused by toxic substances found in Beneful, including propylene glycol, an automotive antifreeze component, and mycotoxins, a group of toxins produced by fungus.

Don’t Mess With My Pet!

How could mere dog chow inspire such anger and passion? For owners, pets are not just play-dates, but true unfailing social support. One study from the American Psychological Association found pet owners fare better on tests of well-being when compared to people without pets. The research also demonstrated ways in which pets were able to stave off negativity caused by rejection from people. Clearly, pets can be relied upon at times when mere humans fail us.
“Pet owners had greater self-esteem, were more physically fit, tended to be less lonely, were more conscientious, were more extraverted, tended to be less fearful, and tended to be less preoccupied than non-owners,” said lead researcher of the 2011 study, Dr. Allen R. McConnell of Miami University in Ohio.
While it’s been clear for years that pets can be helpful to people facing a grave health crisis — think of caredogs helping hospital patients or guide dogs for the blind — this study proves that everyday pet owners reap many health rewards from their favorite “buddies.” As for Purina, well, these few words should suffice: Prepare yourself, this will be painful.

Friday, February 20, 2015

Anthem data breach sparks class action lawsuit | Initiative Legal Group

Below is the first part of an article by WSLS 10 Staff from wsls.com. It reads...
LOS ANGELES, Calif. (WSLS 10) - A law firm announced Wednesday the filing of a class action lawsuit against the nation's second-largest health insurer, Anthem Inc., after the private information of 80 million Anthem customers was stolen in an online data breach.
The law firm, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., said in a release about the lawsuit that over a six-week span beginning in mid-December, hackers took information from Anthem's computers containing customer personal information, including names, birthdates, Social Security numbers, employment records and income data.
The firm said security experts believe devastating financial losses may come for Anthem customers as identity thieves use the information to access items like checking and savings accounts, tax refunds, and apply for credit cards, mortgages and bank loans in their victims' names.
Individuals who now are or once were holders of one of these brands' policies are urged to contact Weitz & Luxenberg for information about how to participate in the class action lawsuit against Anthem.

Friday, February 13, 2015

Initiative Legal Group | More plaintiffs join class action suit over delayed inmate release

Initiative Legal Group is a law firm based in Los Angeles. ILG prosecutes class actions on behalf of employees, consumers, and others who have had their rights violated.
 The article below is by the staff writers from wishtv.com. It reads…
INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) – Two more names were added onto a class action suit filed against the Marion County Sheriff alleging delayed releases from the jail. Michael Boyd and Nicholas Swords joined two other inmates who filed the suit in December.Swords claims in the suit a cousin paid his bond Dec. 12, 2014 but he wasn’t released from the jail until Dec. 15, 2014. According to the suit, the Marion County Sheriff’s computers didn’t reflect that Sword had seen a judge or his bond was paid.In Boyd’s case, the suit alleges he was released from jail two days after he was scheduled to be in November 2014. He was serving time for an alcohol related charge. A pretrial hearing is set to Feb. 24 on the suit. This summer, Judge Mark Stoner told I-Team 8 he discovered a similar problem with the delayed releases.The Marion County Sheriff’s Office declined to comment as their lawyers are still reviewing the amended complaint.

Thursday, February 5, 2015

Initiative Legal Group | Alibaba faces class-action lawsuit in U.S.

Below is the first part of an article by Li Rongde from marketwatch.com. It reads...

BEIJING (Caixin Online) — A U.S. law firm has filed a class action complaint in New York district court against e-commerce giant Alibaba Group BABA, -3.39%  for allegedly violating the U.S. Securities Exchange Act.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP said in a Jan. 30 statement that Alibaba used false information to mislead the public before its listing on the Nasdaq stock exchange regarding the soundness of its business operations, the strength of its financial prospects and concealing substantial regulatory scrutiny.
The law firm said the complaint alleges that Alibaba failed to disclose that its executives met with China’s State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC) in July, two months before its $25 billion initial public offering in New York, and that regulators raised questions about “a variety of highly dubious — even illegal — business practices.”
The law firm said it filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New York on behalf of an Alibaba stockholder named Manishkumar Khunt.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd is appealing to other investors to join the lawsuit. It did not say what compensation it is seeking.
The law firm said Alibaba’s share price fell amid unusually high trading volume on Jan. 28, the day after the SAIC published a white paper summarizing its July meeting with Alibaba executives.
Alibaba’s share price fell to $89.81 on Jan. 29, down 8.8% from the closing price a day earlier, when it slipped 4.4%. The closing price on Monday was $90.13.
The SAIC, China’s commerce regulator, has been locked in a high-profile war of words with Alibaba over counterfeit goods sold on the company’s e-commerce websites.
The dispute started on Jan. 27, when Alibaba publicly challenged SAIC officials over a survey that found that more than 60% of sampled goods on the Taobao website are “not genuine.”
SAIC then released the white paper, which detailed a closed-door meeting between SAIC officials and Alibaba executives over counterfeiting and other irregularities at the company.
In an apparent attempt to defuse the crisis, the SAIC said on Jan. 30 the document is only the minutes of a closed-door meeting and carries no legal weight.
Chen Litong, a member of the All China Lawyers’ Association who practices law in China and in the U.S. state of New York, said that to win class-action litigation, plaintiffs must provide evidence in five criteria, such as whether defendants made false and misleading statements and if losses occurred as a result.
“The SAIC document and its subsequent elaboration seem to only serve as direct evidence that met the first criteria,” he said.
The SAIC document is likely to be accepted as evidence in a U.S. court because evidence that existed before a suit is filed carries more weight that what’s collected in the course of litigation, Chen said.
Source: here