Class Actions or Cases Seeking Class Action status:
Bridgestone/Firestone Recalls Tires: On October 29, 2008, Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, LLC recalled more than 150,000.00 Tires that were produced with insufficient tread base gauge. Firestone FR380 Tires, Size P235/75R15, manufactured between June 4, 2006 and September 8, 2007, and Lemans Champion SE Tires, Size P235/75R15, manufactured between June 4, 2006 and September 2, 2006 are the subject matter of the recall. Bridgestone/Firestone has offered to replace the tires free of charge.
Tires with insufficient tread base can cause vibration and groove cracking, and ultimately could lead to tread distortion or separation, resulting in a loss of control to the vehicle, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Shipman & Wright, LLP has been involved in litigation surrounding defective tires for many years, and can offer assistance to anyone who has suffered an injury after a tire failure.
Sonic Automotive, Inc.: Our attorneys are currently involved in a multi-state proceeding, pending before the American Arbitration Association, Consolidated Case No. 30 459 00642 05, in which it is alleged that Sonic Automotive, Inc. owned, controlled and/or supervised automobile dealerships in 15 states and encouraged and/or pressured these dealerships and their finance and insurance departments to engage in unfair and deceptive trade practices in the sale of aftermarket products, which included the practice of “packing” and “stuffing” aftermarket products in consumer sales or lease transactions through non-disclosure and/or improper disclosure of the products and by including these items as mandatory, non-optional add-ons. We are seeking to have this case certified as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or leased vehicles including APCO Etch or Vehicle Service Contract products from one of these Sonic automobile dealerships located in Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida (has a separate class action pending in Florida), Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. We currently anticipate a hearing concerning class certification to be scheduled before the arbitrator in the early part of 2009.
Class Action Update: Hendrick Automotive Group
Hendrick Automotive Group: Our attorneys are currently involved in a case pending in the Superior Court Division of Union County, North Carolina, File No. 04-CVS-2301, in which it is alleged that Hendrick is a tightly integrated chain of dealerships, owned, operated, controlled and managed through Hendrick Automotive Group and Hendrick Management Corporation (now known as Hendrick Management, L.L.C.) in which the North Carolina Hendrick automobile dealerships engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices, which included “packing” and “stuffing” Hendrick Autoguard Car Care into consumer sales or lease transactions. This case recently obtained preliminary approval of a class settlement on behalf of certain persons that purchased or leased vehicles containing the exterior/interior product known as Car Care from 30 designated North Carolina dealerships from November 30, 2000 to November 30, 2004. We have provided a copy of the Press Release concerning the Settlement. The hearing on Final Approval of the settlement is scheduled February 5, 2010 at the Union County Courthouse in Monroe, North Carolina.
SunCom Wireless: Our attorneys are currently involved in a multi-state proceeding, pending before the Superior Court Division of New Hanover County, North Carolina, in which it is alleged that SunCom violated both State and Federal law in unilaterally imposing a $2.00 per month charge to its customers for “Detailed Billing.” SunCom sent postcards to its subscribers in North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia, using terms like “Free” and “Do Nothing” that informed consumers that they would receive Detailed Billing for “free” for 3 months, after which they would be billed each month unless a consumer notified SunCom that they no longer wanted the service. It is alleged that this practice constitutes a “negative option” billing practice that violates the law of the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Pennsylvania (the State where SunCom is headquartered), thereby entitling consumers to receive a refund of all monies unlawfully collected by SunCom. We are seeking to have this case certified as a class action on behalf of all SunCom consumers in North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia, and a hearing on class certification is expected soon.
