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 any information about this suit, and would like to contact us please click here.

Accountemps and Office Team Overtime Wages
On August 9, 2005, a class action lawsuit was filed against Robert Half International, Inc. ("Robert Half") on behalf of current and former Staffing Managers at Robert Half's Accountempts and Office Team divisions. The suit, entitled Greene v. Robert Half International, Inc., was filed in federal court in San Francisco.

Robert Half is a large specialized staffing firm with 300 offices in North America, almost all with both Accountemps and Office Team division Staffing Managers working as inside sales personnel selling temporary placements of clerical and accounting workers to businesses.

Plaintiff charges that Robert Half illegally treats its Staffing Managers nationwide as "exempt" under federal labor law so it does not have to pay them overtime. The amended class action complaint alleges violations of federal law on behalf of a nationwide class of Staffing Managers.

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

Ward vs. American Homeshield Corporation
The firm, as lead counsel, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in March of 2007 against American Homeshield Corporation (AHS) the nation's leading seller of what are commonly referred to as home warranties. The Complaint alleges that AHS engages in deceptive and unconscionable conduct under California law to increase its revenues and deny consumers the rights afforded them under their AHS contracts.

Specifically, the lawsuit challenges the validity of a recent upgrade program that AHS offered to each of its 1.2 million customers. The complaint alleges that the program was deceptive and provided no value to consumers. The suit seeks to obtain reimbursements for consumers affected.

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

Feder v. Hewett-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 any information about this suit, 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 any information about this suit, and would like to contact us please click here.

Eaves v. Earthlink
This class action lawsuit, filed in March 2005 alleges that defendant Earthlink, a nationwide internet service provider, forces its customers to allegedly pay exorbitant early termination fees if they seek to cancel their service. The suit alleges these fees are unlawful penalties. In effect, the imposition of these fees improperly denies Earthlink customers the ability to cancel their service for any reason such as the poor quality of Earthlink service or take advantage of other offerings in the marketplace. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of consumers across the country, seeks to reimburse consumers who have paid the fee and end Earthlink's practice of charging an early termination fee that amounts to a penalty.

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

Strzalkowski v. General Motors
This class action lawsuit, filed in November 2004, alleges that defendant General Motors deceptively engaged in what was referred to by them as a "customer satisfaction program." The case stems from GM's decision in the late 1990s to replace an aluminum manifold in various GM V6 engines with a plastic part that allegedly had a significant propensity for warping and cracking, resulting in coolant leakage and in some cases catastrophic engine damage. Instead of replacing the manifold in the face of tens of thousands of warranty claims, GM only offered consumers, allegedly, "a band aid" consisting of a set of fastners (to tighten the already damaged manifold to the engine block) and a wood-based additive in the form of a pellet (that filled only small existing leaks). The complaint alleges that this approach, at best was designed only to get consumers beyond the engine’s warranty time period. The suit seeks damages for consumers who were required to pay for repairs caused by the plastic manifold failing and to require that GM bolster the scope of the "customer satisfaction program" to include a new manifold and replacement of damaged seals and related parts.

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