Home  > Our Firm  > Current Cases

Current Cases

Pennington v. Apple, Inc.

On January 29, 2009, Chavez & Gertler LLP and Cafferty Faucher LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Apple, Inc. on behalf of California owners of Apple's iPhone 3G and 3GS models. 

The lawsuit challenges Apple's practice of denying warranty coverage for malfunctioning iPhones on the basis that the iPhones have been abused through liquid spill or submersion.  The iPhones are made with two pieces of tape on the inside of the iPhone that change color when they come in contact with liquid.  Apple could check these internal pieces of tape to determine whether the warranty should be denied due to submersion or liquid abuse, but it does not do so.

The lawsuit alleges that Apple denies warranty coverage after merely checking the color of the pieces of tape located on the outside of the iPhone, at the bottom of the headphone jack and in the dock-connector housing.  According to the lawsuit, these pieces of tape change color when contacted by liquid, even if the phones have never been submerged or subjected to a liquid spill, and even if the malfunction with the iPhone is unrelated to contact with liquid.
 

If you have information about this and would like to contact us, please click here

Other recent cases include:

Yancy v. DeCarli's Petaluma Butane Distibutors, Inc.

On January 30, 2009, Chavez & Gertler, in conjunction with Legal Aid of Marin, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of propane users victimized by deceptive billing practices. DeCarli’s Petaluma Propane Distributors delivers and sells propane to households in the northwestern San Francisco Bay Area which use the fuel for heating and other household purposes. The suit alleges that DeCarli’s imposed charges that inaccurately reflect the rate, quantity, or price of the goods provided. The suit further alleges that hundreds, if not thousands, of consumers have been systematically overcharged as a result of DeCarli’s unlawful and deceptive practices.

For more information, you can see the Marin Independent Journal News Article and the Point Reyes Light News Article.

If you have information about this and would like to contact us, please click here

Richardson v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and Wells Fargo Financial California, Inc.

On November 5, 2008, Chavez & Gertler, in conjunction with Kemnitzer, Anderson, Barron & Ogilvie, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Wells Fargo Bank and Wells Fargo Financial California were improperly collecting deficiency balances from motor vehicle owners whose vehicle was repossessed and disposed of by sale.  The suit alleges that the notices that Wells Fargo sent to the class regarding their intent to sell the repossessed vehicles and the owner's rights to redeem the vehicle or reinstate the loan failed to set forth all of the disclosures required by the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act.

If you have information about this and would like to contact us, please click here

Dunker v. Certainteed

This class action lawsuit, filed on September 22, 2006, alleges that defendant Certainteed manufactured, sold and distributed defective roofing shingles in several states across the country. Despite providing consumers with warranties of 25 and 30 years, the Certainteed shingles at issue in the case allegedly failed well before that time and exhibited flaking, deterioration and curling sometimes as early as 5 years after installation. Certainteed, in case after case, allegedly failed to honor their warranty and refused to pay the significant cost of replacement including the labor required to remove and replace the defective shingles with a non-defective substitute. The case seeks to reimburse consumers for the cost of the defective shingles and pay for the labor required for reinstallation.

If you have information about this and would like to contact us, please click here

Nahay v. Vonage

This class action lawsuit, filed in November 2006, alleges that defendant Vonage, one of the first voice over internet protocol telecommunications company engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to allow consumers to cancel their service despite repeated demands. The suit also alleges that Vonage service was inadequate in a number of significant ways. For example, despite representations to the contrary, Vonage users were unable to receive or complete calls to several non-internet telecom carriers. The suit seeks damages for consumers who were forced to pay for service they did not receive or attempted to cancel.

If you have information about this and would like to contact us, please click here

Sun Microsystems Overtime Wages

On January 25, 2006, Chavez & Gertler filed a class action lawsuit against Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun") on behalf of current and former technical support employees of Sun alleging it failed to pay overtime wages in violation of California labor laws. The suit, entitled Connell v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., was filed in Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland, California.

It alleges that Sun illegally treats its California employees who install, maintain or support computer software or equipment as "exempt" under California labor laws so it does not have to pay them overtime. Plaintiff is asking the court to order Sun to pay technical support employees for the overtime they have worked in the past, and to start paying overtime to employees who are eligible for it.

If you have information about this and would like to contact us, please click here

Feder v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

This nationwide class action lawsuit, filed in June of 2005 alleges that defendant Hewlett-Packard Co.'s (HP), low on ink (LOI) warnings on its popular inkjet printers were deceptive. The Complaint alleges that these warnings were significantly inaccurate and HP knew these warnings were inaccurate, and failed to disclose to consumers the scope and magnitude of the inaccuracy. In some instances, consumers were deceived by these warnings to the degree that based on the warning, they discarded ink cartridges that contained useable ink. This case, brought on behalf of consumers throughout the nation, seeks damages relating to ink purchased unnecessarily or discarded because of HP's failure to advise consumers of the true nature of the low ink waning.

The suit also requests injunctive relief which would require HP, by court order, to more accurately calculate and report the remaining ink in the cartridge and provide more complete and useful disclaimers and information to consumers about the levels of remaining ink.

If you have information about this and would like to contact us, please click here