Seattle, WA (PRWEB) January 8, 2007

Spam Arrest LLC, which provides the popular web service software to eliminate email spam, hopes to end its four year legal battle against Hormel next month.

Spam Arrest is the only company ever, except Hormel Foods Corporation, to secure a trademark including the word “spam” recorded on the principal United States trademark register. For nearly four years, Spam Arrest has defended its trademark against Hormel’s lawsuit seeking to cancel the SPAM ARREST trademark registration.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the federal administrative court charged with overseeing the national trademark office, has decided to hold the final hearing for case number 92042134, Hormell vs. Spam Arrest, before a live audience of trademark lawyers in New York City. The hearing will take place at the Practicing Law Institute in New York on February 23, 2007.

Spam Arrest has incurred almost $ 500,000 defending its trademark rights. “We’ve spent years fighting for our trademark, while much larger companies have simply abandoned their trademark applications after threats from Hormel,” said Brian Cartmell, CEO of Spam Arrest. “Not one person confuses our anti-spam service with Hormel’s canned meat — the average American consumer is smarter than that.”

“Spam Arrest is defending not only their own trademark, but the right of every anti-spam company in America to use the term ‘spam’ in marketing and branding,” added Derek A. Newman of Newman & Newman, lead counsel for Spam Arrest. “There are hundreds of companies affected by Hormel’s overly broad interpretation of its rights, and hopefully Spam Arrest will ensure that all such businesses can accurately describe products that combat spam.”

“No matter the outcome of the hearing,” said Cartmell, “Spam Arrest will continue to provide the best anti-spam service in the world, saving businesses and consumers both time and money by eliminating the hassle of unwanted email.”

Spam Arrest has successfully prevented billions of unwanted communications (i.e. SPAM) from reaching customer email boxes since 2001.

About Spam Arrest

Spam Arrest LLC is a Seattle-based company that has developed a simple, patent-protected and affordable system that efficiently stops spam. The company has grown substantially and steadily since its 2001 launch, while expanding services and increasing functionality. Spam Arrest continues to monitor automated junk email techniques and upgrades automatically as necessary to protect its users. For more information visit or contact via email.

For Interviews or Questions:

Derek A. Newman of Newman & Newman by Telephone at +1 206 274 2800 or by email.


OTTAWA (PRWEB) August 5, 2008

“This is just another victory in a string of recent wins against j2,” said Andrea Girones, General Counsel at Protus. “This UK win is significant for us as our market presence continues to grow in Europe. We have also challenged the registration of the mark in the United States and we are confident that our opposition to ‘efax’ as a mark in the U.S. will also be successful.”

Last year Protus defeated j2 Global Communications in a patent lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case was closely followed by technology and communications companies because j2 Global Communications, prior to targeting Protus, licensed the patents to more than 30 companies. Protus was the first company to challenge these patents in the courts and was awarded a decisive victory.

“MyFax continues to be of the highest quality and is the fastest growing Internet fax product on the market,” said Joseph Nour, Protus’ Chief Executive Officer. “We’re committed to maintaining a leadership role and continuing to bring superior solutions to meet evolving business needs.”

Protus provides the highest quality software-as-a-service communications tools for small-to-medium-businesses and enterprise organizations. The company currently offers the fastest growing Internet fax service MyFax, my1voice the cost-effective virtual PBX phone service, and email marketing solution Campaigner.

About Protus

Protus® provides the highest quality software as a service (SaaS) communications tools for small-to-medium-businesses (SMB) and enterprise organizations, including award-winning MyFax, the fastest growing Internet fax service; my1voice, the cost-effective, feature-rich virtual PBX phone service that travels with the user from phone to web; and Campaigner and CampaignerPro, software-as-a-service email marketing solutions with advanced automation features. Protus’ commitment to delivering a superior user experience has resulted in a continually growing and loyal customer base, allowing market leadership in industries including finance, insurance, real estate, healthcare, transportation and government. For more information about Protus and its family of communication tools, call 888-733-7007 or visit

Bethesda, MD (PRWEB) October 3, 2008

Providing an independent and unbiased third party review of companies and employees who serve senior citizens in their homes, SeniorChecked has been released by Silver Nation, LLC in the Washington, DC market to combat the rise in elder abuse, financial exploitation and crimes against seniors.

According to the U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs, fraud and financial exploitation takes in about $ 100 billion a year. By vetting and verifying businesses, the Web-based SeniorChecked was designed to take the guesswork out of selecting a trustworthy service provider for vulnerable seniors.

Upon completion of initial business recruitment efforts, the SeniorChecked directory of businesses will be available to consumers free-of-charge in the Washington, DC metro area via the SeniorChecked Web site ( and toll-free telephone support center.

Companies voluntarily submit applications to be SeniorChecked and are required to have employees with senior contact undergo thorough local and national background checks. Companies are reviewed in four areas: Licensing, Insurance/Crime bond, Financial, and Criminal/Lawsuits.

“The reality is, not every company that submits its application will pass the stringent standards of SeniorChecked,” said John E. Hansan, Ph.D., a published gerontologist and co-founder of Silver Nation. “We set the bar high because the senior citizens of our country deserve the protection this product provides. The companies who step up and get SeniorChecked recognize the value of this product.”

In addition to the online directory provided to seniors and their families, the individual employee who comes to the home can be verified through the Web site or toll free support center. This two-step process of “finding and verifying” provides added assurance to family members to know the person coming in to help their parents has been thoroughly background checked.

Pricing for an individual company to be SeniorChecked ranges from $ 150 to $ 195 a year depending on the type of business. The background check fee is $ 45 for service company employees.

Dr. Hansan explained, “most background checks only review data in the state in which the employee currently resides in. SeniorChecked involves a local and national screening of 30 different databases and will go back up to seven years. This is vital to protecting our senior citizens and we are proud to offer the most comprehensive review available.”

The SeniorChecked application is completed online on the SeniorChecked Website Customer Support Specialists are available by toll-free phone [1.866.675.7226] to answer questions from businesses and consumers.

About Silver Nation, LLC:

Silver Nation, LLC is dedicated to developing technology solutions to serve and protect our nation’s senior citizens and assist them in living independently, safely and without fear. A privately held company that believes “silver” is the new “green,” Silver Nation is based in Bethesda, Maryland.

For further information, please contact:

Beth Dresing

VP Marketing

direct: 301.656.8886, ex.19

mobile: 240.778.9579

edresing @


Irvine, CA (PRWEB) May 3, 2010

Scilabs Nutraceuticals, a dietary supplement manufacturer, has filed suit against Naturade, a division of NNC LC, for the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, and breach of contract. The complaint, case number 00341089, filed in Orange County Superior Court, Santa Ana, seeks to hold Naturade liable for damages.

As stated in the case, in late 2008 Naturade partnered with Scilabs to develop working formulas for thirteen Naturade brand products. According to court documents from Richard Robinette, CEO of Naturade, these products were distributed to over 25,000 major retailers nationwide including Sam’s Club, The Vitamin Shoppe,,, UNFI, Tree of Life, Stop n Shop, Publix, Meijer, and a “host of mid-size and small chains…”. In December of 2009, after the investment of hundreds of hours of skilled research and development on the part of Scilabs, Naturade abruptly severed its contractual ties. Naturade went on to work with other labs and reverse engineer Scilabs’ formulas. In doing so, Naturade allegedly not only breached established contractual agreements, but also violated Scilabs’ right to ownership of its own intellectual property.

According to Paul Edalat, CEO and Chairman of Scilabs, Naturade and Robinette allegedly conspired to defraud Scilabs. In the suit, Scilabs contends that Robinette fraudulently induced Scilabs to do business with promises of longevity and large volumes of production, despite its recent bankruptcy. “(Robinette) had intentions to use Scilabs to rebuild Naturade as a brand and move business elsewhere,” Edalat states. “Theft of intellectual property cannot be taken lightly; we will battle this and we will prevail.” In order to accommodate the anticipated growth in business volume Scilabs asserts that it was not only forced to cease pursuing new customers, but to make large monetary and time investments to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Furthermore, Scilabs contends in court documents that Naturade is unfairly competing by misappropriating Scilabs’ formulas. What was once a method of advancement in nutraceutical research and development has turned into a tool for propagating widespread fraud and unfair competitive practices. While the Food and Drug Administration does not regulate what can be considered “knock-off” dietary supplements, a food in the eyes of the FDA, Section 403 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, protects consumers from misbranded foods. As Edalat states, “In an industry experiencing rapid growth, practices such as reverse engineering of proprietary formulas should be illegal. While it harms the image of the industry, the consumer is the one who will suffer in the end.”

For more information regarding the lawsuit please visit

Scilabs Nutraceuticals Inc., is a contract manufacturer based in Irvine, California. For more information please visit


Tracey Kelley, director of public relations

Tracey (at) Scilabs (dot) net


(PRWEB) March 14, 2003

Winnipeg, Manitoba, March 3, 2003 – The Canadian Imaging Products Remanufacturers Association (CIPRA) fully supports the Static Control Components antitrust lawsuit against Lexmark filed on February 28, 2003 in Federal Court in North Carolina. The antitrust suit alleges that Lexmark violated state and federal laws, including the Sherman Act (the US federal antitrust legislation), the Lanham Act (which contains deceptive advertising provisions) and North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practice statute by erecting technological barriers that prevent imaging product remanufactures from selling recycled toner cartridges to printer users.

“If not thwarted, these practices will severely damage the imaging products remanufacturing industry in North America,” says Tim Lomax, Chair of the CIPRA Trade Restriction Committee. “CIPRA fully supports Static Control’s antitrust suit against Lexmark and Static Control’s efforts to help remanufacturers offer customers a cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternative to original toner cartridges.”

“A positive ruling would also set important precedents for other aftermarket industries, such as the automotive industry,” Lomax adds.

Last April, CIPRA made a $ 5,000 donation to support the Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association (ACRA) lawsuit fighting restrictive trade practices introduced by Lexmark. The ACRA case, in discovery with a trial date in October 2003, alleges that Lexmark engaged in deceptive advertising, unfair competition, and specifically targets the Prebate program, which gives customers advanced discounts on the purchase of their next printer toner cartridge.

Remanufacturing cartridges reduces capital costs and lowers the total cost of printer ownership and the per page cost of printing by approximately 30 to 40% per printer when compared to the exclusive use of original cartridges, according to CIPRA. The typical imaging products remanufacturing customer has 20 to 40 printers, which means substantial savings for companies that use remanufacturers.

“In addition to saving Canadian businesses money, imaging product remanufacturing companies employ over 2,000 people in Canada and recycle over 100,000 cartridges per month. This saves over 300,000 liters of oil and keeps over 500,000 pounds of waste from going into landfill sites each month,” says Lomax.

The growth of the Canadian imaging products remanufacturing industry has paralleled the dynamic growth of the computer industry in Canada. However, the industry faces obstacles to continued growth from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) who have engaged in a variety of Restrictive Trade Practices. These practices lock businesses and consumers into buying replacement cartridges from the OEM, rather than from local remanufacturers.

CIPRA educates government decision-makers about practices that limit consumer choice and make it difficult for remanufacturers to fulfill business demands for remanufactured imaging products. CIPRA also promotes remanufacturing as an industry that produces high-quality products that save businesses money. To that end, CIPRA has established a Code of Ethics designed to encourage professionalism and sound business practice in the remanufacturing industry.


The Canadian Imaging Products Remanufacturers Association (CIPRA) is a not-for-profit, member-funded and supported association founded in 1998 to lobby against OEM trade restrictive practices and to promote the economic and environmental benefits of remanufactured imaging products. Headquartered in Winnipeg, Manitoba, CIPRA has 61 members across Canada. CIPRA is a member of the International Imaging Technology Council (ITC), which represents the interests of the world’s office imaging industry.



Tim Lomax

A&M Computer Supplies

Tel: 905 475-6177



Shelley Morris

CIPRA Executive Director

Phone: (204) 795-2000

Fax: (204) 925-8000


(PRWEB) June 4, 2005

The New Jersey law firms of Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman and Lynch Keefe Bartels filed a complaint against Bank of America on Wednesday June 1, 2005 in New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Mercer County (Jones v. Bank of America; Docket Number not yet available) on behalf of Trenton resident Cindy Jones. The attorneys announced their intention to seek class action status to represent other identity theft victims as well against financial services giant Bank of America for damages resulting from the theft of tens of thousands of customer information files.

Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman, with offices in Princeton, Mount Holly and Nutley NJ, and Lynch Keefe Bartels, with offices in Shrewsbury, New Jersey will serve as co-counsel in this matter and seek class action status by the Court.

Ms. Jones, a customer of Bank of America, was informed that her personal financial information, including her Social Security number, were found in the possession of individuals arrested by Hackensack, New Jersey police in the growing scandal. Of immediate concern to her attorneys, are potential unauthorized use of Ms. Jones’ identity between the times of the theft and the arrests, the need (and cost) to carefully monitor Ms. Jones’ credit reports for unauthorized activity during the next several years, and the availability of Ms. Jones’ identity for her own use.

Hackensack, New Jersey police announced that more than 676,000 customers were affected when bank employees illegally sold information on more than 1 million accounts from 4 financial services companies: Bank of America, Wachovia, PNC and Commerce Bank. Police first announced arrests of 9 people, including 7 current and former bank employees, on Monday, May 23, 2005.

“Bank of America reported alerting about 60,000 customers who were included on computer disks discovered by police, bank spokeswoman Alex Liftman said Monday,” reported the Associated Press (“Banks Notify Customers of Data Theft” by Paul Nowell, May 23, 2005.

CNN/Money reported: “As this gets going, these numbers are going to go up and up, Hackensack Detective Captain Frank Lomia told CNN, adding that more arrests may be coming in the case. … The data-theft may have been the biggest ever in banking, the Hackensack NJ police department said in a statement citing an unnamed Treasury Department official.” (“Bank Security Breach May Be Biggest Yet”, CNN/Money, May 23, 2005)

Reports of lax handling and rampant selling of confidential and personal customer financial information increasingly blankets the press. Epidemic demand for stolen identities appears to have been met by easy availability.

According to a news story carried by several New Jersey newspapers, “Protecting Your Privacy” by Ellen Simon of the Associated Press (May 24, 2005) highlighted examples of problems confronting and solutions available financial services companies, based on interviews computer security professionals who spoke of relatively inexpensive prevention steps, such as: Monitored internal audit trails, restricting data access, limiting data collection, basic encryption, secure shipping, and simple background checks. The experts also raised corporate management hurdles security measure confront, like low priority and cost-benefit perceptions.

“Bank of America has a fiduciary responsibility to protect clients’ confidential personal and account information and could have taken some reasonable steps to prevent these thefts,” explains Arthur Penn, Esq., a partner and mass torts and class action litigation attorney at the New Jersey law firm of Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman. “Bank of America is in a business based on trust, and they violated that trust. So this lawsuit seeks to hold them accountable.”

“This is more than a story about the massive theft of customers’ personal financial data,” says John Keefe, Jr., Esq., a partner and New Jersey mass torts and class action litigation attorney at Lynch Keefe Bartels. “This is also a story about the massive failure of the bank, or banks, to take reasonable actions to protect their customers’ personal financial information from identity theft.”


Newport Beach, CA (PRWEB) July 5, 2007

According to papers filed in the case of Cristina Mauth v. Yamaha Motor Corporation (Orange County Superior Court Case No. 06CC03452), on February 28, 2004, 50-year old Riverside woman, Cristina Mauth, sustained numerous injuries, including a fractured left arm, when the rear brakes of her 2004 Yamaha “660R Raptor” ATV allegedly failed. Ms. Mauth’s lawsuit further alleges that, one week after her injury, Ms. Mauth received a “Safety Recall Notice” from Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. dated February 27, 2004, warning owners of the “660R Raptor” that there was a significant risk of rear brake failure. According to Ms. Mauth’s attorneys, to date, despite Yamaha’s nationwide ATV recall campaign and apparent indications that Yamaha may have been responsible for the rear brake defect, Yamaha has refused to offer Ms. Mauth even a penny in compensation for her personal injuries.

Mrs. Mauth is represented by Orange County Personal Injury Attorney, Stephen D. Counts of Newport Beach plaintiff’s firm, Russell & Lazarus. Mr. Counts says, “when the very lives and safety of consumers are at stake, it is only reasonable to expect that a large multinational corporation like Yamaha should be held accountable for designing, manufacturing, and distributing defective and harmful products.”

According to documents produced by Yamaha, the February 28th “Safety Recall Notice” was issued by Yamaha Motor Corporation’s Customer Support Group, located in Cypress, California. The Safety Recall Notice advises, among other things, that, “vibration from the engine and driveline during prolonged high rpm usage could cause the rear master cylinder reservoir to agitate, resulting in brake fluid aeration.” Yamaha specifically instructed customers that “you should not ride your ATV until this modification is performed.”

“Unfortunately for Cristina Mauth, Yamaha’s recall campaign was not issued in time to save her from a devastating ATV accident,” says Attorney Counts. Mrs. Mauth alleges in her lawsuit that, as a result of the accident, she was catapulted from her ATV and down a hill. Mrs. Mauth further alleges that she suffered a fractured left arm, which required an internal fixation surgery and the insertion of rods and screws, which remain to this day. Currently, Mrs. Mauth claims ongoing weakness and pain in the left arm and shoulder, as well as diagnosed emotional injuries, including depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Moreoever, Mrs. Mauth alleges that she was forced to be absent from work for several months after the accident and, ultimately, was terminated from her administrative position with Action Embroidery, a job she had held for 19 years.

Based upon documents produced by Mrs. Mauth in the course of litigation, it appears that Mrs. Mauth purchased her 2004 Yamaha Raptor ATV on November 23, 2003. Based upon documentation recently obtained from Yamaha, it now appears that Yamaha may have known of the rear brake defect before Ms. Mauth purchased her ATV, and before Yamaha began the recall campaign.

In fact, several “Call Reports” prepared by Yamaha in 2003 and produced to Mrs. Mauth’s attorneys contain evidence suggesting that customers were complaining of repeated rear brake failures in April, May, and June of 2003. These “Call Reports” released by Yamaha suggest the following: on April 15, 2003, Yamaha customer, Zack Garrett, reported that he was involved in an ATV accident due to brake failure; on May 19, 2003, Yamaha customer, Frank Vaiana, reported that his son’s “brake pedal was pushed all the way to the floor” with no response; on June 26, 2003, Yamaha customer, Wayne Wathen, reported what appears to be the third of three master cylinder failures; on October 21, 2003, Yamaha customer, George Vera, reported that he was involved in an accident when his 2004 Raptor experienced brake failure.

Testing Reports obtained from Yamaha further indicate that, as early as August of 2003, testing performed by Yamaha revealed the existence of air bubbles in the brake fluid reservoir tank and the hose leading to the master cylinder. Despite these results, Yamaha did not issue the recall campaign until nearly half a year later, on February 28, 2004.

According to Yamaha’s own records, there are approximately 39 injury claims nationwide related to the “660R Raptor” alleged brake defect and eight of those are located in California. To date, according to Mrs. Mauth’s attorneys, Yamaha has refused to make a settlement offer with respect to Mrs. Mauth’s claim for injuries.

“Yamaha Motor Corporation’s hard-line approach with respect to Cristina’s case is not unexpected and we are prepared for a fight,” says Orange County product liability attorney, Stephen Counts. Mr. Counts goes on to say, “it is the unfortunate state of our society that large corporations and the insurance industry have simply become accustomed to running roughshod over the rights of consumers in the pursuit of shareholder profits.”

Cristina Mauth v. Yamaha Motor Corporation (Orange County Superior Court Case No. 06CC03452) is being heard in Department C21 of the Orange County Superior Court, Central Justice Center and is currently scheduled for trial on November 19, 2007.


Orange County personal injury lawyer, Stephen D. Counts, is an experienced litigator, practicing exclusively in the area of Serious Personal Injury at the firm of Russell & Lazarus, APC in the City of Newport Beach, California.

For additional information on the news that is the subject of this release:

Stephen D. Counts, Esq.

Russell & Lazarus, APC

4921 Birch Street, Suite 120

Newport Beach, CA 92660

Main Office:    949-851-0222

Cell Phone:    714-679-3221

Web Site:


Question by Patrick M: Anyone aware of any class action lawsuit against ebay for violating contract with sellers?
Ebay has cost me money, time and indescribable anxiety, I will not attempt to go into detail here. I am simply wondering if anyone is aware of any class action lawsuit(s) against ebay and/or paypal for violating their contract with a seller; unfair, deceptive, unethical business practices, chronic errors in billing and deceive fee structure, insufficient seller support and conflict resolution, change without sufficient notice of policy, collusion, no recompense for listings not appearing, etc. etc. The money I have lost is in the thousands. The time lost is immeasurable. The stress, anxiety and toll they have taken on my family has had a direct and permanent negative impact on my family and our quality of life never mind livelihood.

I am not the litigious type, this is the first time I have ever considered suing anybody, and I have had the grounds in the past on a number of occasions for an easy payday, but that is not the way we want to live our lives. Normally I would consider going the BBB route, but ebay will not get another minute of my time directly. I know this will sound vengeful, but it’s time they paid the piper and experienced some loss of time money, and even if they suffered a fraction of what they have put my family through repeatedly since 1997, I would be a happy man. My wife and I are good, hardworking individuals who recently ceased using ebay. We have depended on the supplemental income it provided in the past and relied on it as our sole source of income in a tighter time. We have never done anything illegal and concluded our 13 years on ebay with a 98.8% feedback rating and a 5-star customer satisfaction rating. We are not ranting lunatics and will approach this matter systematically using reason rather than emotion. Your infomation and advice will not be wasted should you choose to contact me.

I recognize there is power in numbers and am certain I cannot be the only one in such a position and state of mind. If anyone is aware of any class action lawsuits or a resource I can reach out to to entertain this notion, I would be in your debt. I would also be interested in any precedence along these lines. I am in the information-gathering stage of this endeavor and would appreciate any info of precedence, current or planned class-action suits, Any information or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time reading this and your consideration.
Thank you for the responses thus far. Cyanne 2A, any links to that info you have? Why do you think no attorney’s want to take the case? It seems something that many, many people are having a problem with, I am surprised to hear that there are no trials or even settlements! Again, I could approach this fromthe paypal angle for them taking thousands from my account without authorization due to sellers who stole from me and misrepresented the facts and truth to ebay and paypal. Or, because of the broadness of my complaints, I think it would be more effective going the ebay – parent company angle. Please tell me how you came about that informaton. I hope I wake up tomorrow to some more great responses. Thanks – I am newto this Yahoo answers, I don’t see how I can reply to your post so I am writing you back this way. Please let me know if you see this if there is a better way of replying to the responses I receive. Boy am I helpless today ;)
I know many of us dislike what ebay has become, but I am looking for any info on class action lawsuits against them for the reasons stated above. I would imagine there must be some!! Please share. Thanks

Best answer:

Answer by cyanne2ak
There have been several, and not a single one has gone to trial. Usually, the suits are dismissed because the sellers can’t find a “class representative” who actually read their contract. Ebay’s contract with the sellers is very unforgiving of the seller.

Give your answer to this question below!

Venom Pro Street

Syracuse, N.Y. (PRWEB) May 11, 2009

A product liability trial arising out of an alleged custom motorcycle defect begins today in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The plaintiff’s claims against the defendant, a California-based company with a worldwide distribution network, include defective design, defective manufacturing, inadequate warnings, breach of warranty and negligence. The Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Court Judge, will preside over the trial, which is expected to last two weeks.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Marcus J. (Marc) Mathews v. Big Bear American Made Choppers, Inc. (Case No.: 5:04-cv-1206), is a forty year old resident of Solvay, New York. He is represented by Anthony S. Bottar and Michael A. Bottar, of the Syracuse, New York law firm of Bottar Leone, PLLC.

According to the complaint, on June 13, 2004, the plaintiff was riding his three month old Venom ProStreet motorcycle in Alton, New Hampshire when the front fender assembly failed causing the nearly 10 pound fender to come into contact with and lock the front tire of the motorcycle. The plaintiff then lost control of the motorcycle, crashed into another motorcycle, and was thrown into a ravine where he sustained severe arm and leg injuries. After more than two years of surgeries, the plaintiff’s right leg was amputated above the knee.

According to court records, the Alton Police Department, with assistance from New Hampshire State Troopers, conducted an investigation after the accident which revealed that two of the four ¼”-20 screws intended to hold the motorcycle’s front fender to the bike had fallen out prior to the accident. Eye witness accounts, a tire imprint on the underside of the front fender, and a distinct skid signature left on the roadway led the police to conclude that a defect in the motorcycle caused the accident.

After three years of discovery, the plaintiff’s attorneys claim that Big Bear American Made Choppers had actual or constructive notice, more than one year prior to the plaintiff’s accident, that the method it selected to attach the Venom’s front fender to its lower legs was inadequate.

Bottar Leone, PLLC, is a trial law firm based in Syracuse, New York. Since 1983, the Firm’s legal team has limited its practice to representing the victims of negligence and malpractice throughout the State of New York.

For additional information on the news that is the subject of this release, contact:

Jillian Owdienko

Director of Public Relations

Bottar Leone, PLLC



Question by wonderer: Could a class action lawsuit be filed against the bank?
My bank employs the Biggest Check First when charges excessive overdraft fees. My account, with a balance of $ 1000, was charged overdraft fees twice when two checks came in the same day, check 101 $ 10 and check 102 $ 1010. It would have been charged only once if the Smallest Check First or Order by Check Number were used. The Customer Agreement didn’t specify which way will be used when overdraft happens. The bank purposely does so to collect more overdraft fees without awareness or agreement of customers.

Best answer:

Answer by ceprn
That’s the way all banks work. Deal with it by being responsible and never writing a check that you can’t cover – in some jurisdictions that is a felony, depending upon the amount.

Once again, someone wants to play the victim because they can’t deal with the consequences of their own actions.

The bank doesn’t want to collect overdraft fees – that’s not what they are in business for; overdraft fees are a *PUNISHMENT* for abusing their services. You can’t write checks for more money than you have.

Add your own answer in the comments!