Class Actions Brief Blog

Not every class action court filing in North and South Carolina becomes a full-length post on our blog. Here is a recap of April’s filings:

Graham v. Papa John’s USA, Inc., No. 14-cvs-7700 (Meck. County Apr. 25, 2014) (tort claims arising from alleged infections caused by restaurant worker with Hepatitis A).

Reed v. Big Water Resort, No. 2:14-cv-01583 (D.S.C. Apr. 22, 2014) (alleged “scheme to solicit millions of dollars from over a thousand people in exchange for the sale of nearly worthless memberships in the Big Water Resort,” located in Clarendon County).

Knight v. Pella Corp., No. 2:14-cv-01540 (D.S.C. Apr. 19, 2014) – South Carolina plaintiffs have sued Pella Corporation, a distributor of custom, residential windows and doors. Knight alleges that Pella designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, and sold its defective windows to him and to other consumers throughout South Carolina. Knight alleges that at the time of the sale, Pella’s aluminum wood clad windows and doors contained a defect that permitted water to enter through unsealed areas, causing the wood cladding to leak, rot, and degrade. The defect led to homeowners having to spend money to fix damaged wooden window frames and other property inside their residences. Knight is seeking class certification, compensatory and punitive damages, costs, interest and attorneys’ fees.

Krakauer v. Dish Network, L.L.C., No. 1:14-cv-333 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 18, 2014) — On behalf of a proposed nationwide class, Plaintiff has sued Dish Network, L.L.C. (“Dish”) for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by Satellite Systems Network (“SSN”). The complaint asserts that SSN is an authorized Dish dealer that has violated the TCPA through repeated telemarketing calls to telephone numbers on the Do Not Call Registry. Seeking certification under Rule 23(b)(3), the complaint identifies seven alleged common questions of law and fact. The lawsuit requests injunctive relief as well as statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 per call.

Webster v. MetLife Home Loans, LLC, No. 3:14-cv-01361 (D.S.C. Apr. 14, 2014) – Plaintiffs have sued MetLife, alleging that the personal mortgage loan servicing company failed to renew their flood insurance policy with funds from their escrow account. During the lapse in coverage, the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 was signed into law, and Plaintiffs’ new flood insurance premium payments are now unsubsidized and more expensive. Plaintiffs allege that MetLife’s internal policies caused many homeowners to have a lapse in flood insurance coverage when the 2012 legislation was enacted.

You can view a current list of recent filings here.