Representative Actions

Kalcheim Law Group, P.C.

Representative Actions

Attorneys with the Kalcheim Law Group, P.C. have acted as either Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in the below listed Class and Representative Actions.

Lampone v. Avis Rent a Car, Inc. et al.

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC226584

Case brought on behalf of California consumers alleging that Avis’s Rental Agreement, with regard to its fuel charges, was “confusing and misleading” and contrary to “fundamental rules of honesty and fair dealing.”  Avis was required to amend its disclosures so consumers could understand their refueling options; and Avis was required to post signs setting forth in simple terms its refueling options and the price of each option.  All Settlement Class members who rented a vehicle between March 16, 1996, and October 4, 2002, and were charged the Gas Service Option (GSO) or Fuel Service Charge (FSC), were eligible to receive up to three certificates redeemable for $10 each off one car rental from Avis.

Hansell, et al. v. Zurich American Insurance Company

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC253413

This case was filed on behalf of Zurich employees who were unpaid for overtime hours they worked.  The case was finally settled in mediation after months of litigation.  The settlement created a common fund of $1.85 million.  Each class member received $45 for each week that they were employed by the Company.

Extensis, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Company

Middlesex County Superior Court No. L6843-01

This case was brought on behalf of persons who purchased Hewlett-Packard Laser Jet printer models HP 1100 series, 5L, 6L, 3100, 3150, manufactured between September 1, 1995, and June 30, 2000, to recover for a defect in those models.  This defect, which is known as the “Multifeed Problem” caused prints to feed multiple sheets of paper at a time, cause paper jams, or not print documents at all.  According to the Settlement Agreement, different classes of persons received different refund amounts, based on their printer model, whether they had repaired their printer, and whether they had documentation for the repair or not.

Heller v. Circle K, Inc.,

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC293823

This case was brought on behalf of all California consumers alleging that Circle K unlawfully imposed California sales taxes on non-taxable beverages, such as Gatorade, Hi-C, and Icee.  According to California tax laws, non-carbonated beverages are not subject to retail sales tax.  During the course of the litigation, Plaintiff’s counsel successfully moved for an injunction to bring an immediate halt this unlawful practice.  Thereafter, the settlement created a fluid recovery (price rollback) to return monies to affected consumers.

Gordon v. Dollar Rent-a-Car,

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC226757

Plaintiff brought a class action alleging that Dollar Rent-a-Car’s fuel charge practices, policies and disclosures violated California consumer protection laws.  The parties reached a class wide settlement which provided $9 million of vehicle upgrade certificates to class members.  The class consisted of all people who rented a car from Defendant in California between June 1998 and June 2003 and who paid a fuel charge.  In addition to the certificates that class members received, Defendant also amended its rental policies and clarified its disclosures relating fuel charges.

Plattner v. Stations Casinos, Inc., et al.,

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC295056

Plaintiff alleged that the Stations Casinos failed to properly disclose all mandatory hotel charges when consumers booked their rooms, among the non-disclosed charges were: Energy Surcharges and Telephone Surcharges.  Defendant changed their policies and instituted a full disclosure notification regarding the Telephone and/or Energy Surcharge.  Defendants were also required to distribute coupons worth $5.50 to each class member; the coupons were fully transferable and were mailed directly each class members.  The prospective relief in this case was valued at $10,000,000.  The class consisted of all persons in the United States who stayed at any hotel that was owned and/or managed by Stations Casinos, Inc. during the time period of April 1, 2001 through June 30, 2003.

Kalcheim v. Kerzner International Ltd.

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC335612

Counsel successfully negotiated a nationwide class settlement which was valued at over $1.5 million.  Plaintiff brought a class action against Kerzer International, Ltd. alleging that Defendant failed to properly disclose all mandatory hotel charges, including, housekeeping and/or energy surcharges.  The class consisted of all persons in the United States who stayed at either the Atlantis Paradise Island or the Ocean Club during the time period from June 24, 2001 through August 24, 2006.  Defendant agreed to change its policies regarding disclosure all mandatory surcharges.  In addition, Defendant distributed coupons, via U.S. Mail, to each class member worth $5.00 per night of stay during the class period.

Heller v. Chevron, et al.

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC304801

This case was brought on behalf of all California consumers alleging that Chevron and Texaco outlets in California unlawfully imposed California sales taxes on non-taxable fountain beverages.  According to California tax laws, non-carbonated beverages are not subject to retail sales tax.  As a result of the lawsuit, Defendants promptly stopped their practice of collecting retail sales tax on non-carbonated fountain beverages.  Defendants agreed, absent a change in the applicable laws, not to reinstitute its practice.  The value of the settlement in cases similar to this one were valued at well over $2 million.

Kim v. ExxonMobil, et al.

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC285091

This class action case was brought on behalf of all California consumers alleging that Exxon outlets in California unlawfully imposed California sales taxes on non-taxable fountain beverages.  According to California tax laws, non-carbonated beverages are not subject to retail sales tax.  As part of the Settlement Defendants agreed to stop their unlawful practice of charging tax on non-carbonated fountain beverages.  The value of the settlement in cases similar to this one were valued at well over $2 million.

Feld v. Circus Circus

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC294454

Plaintiff alleged that Circus Circus’ Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas failed to disclose all mandatory charges associated with reservations when reservations were made through Defendant’s telephone reservation system or website.  Specifically, Plaintiff asserted that Defendant failed to disclose that in addition to his room rate he would be required to pay a mandatory Telephone Surcharge for each night of his stay.  The class action suit was settled on behalf all consumers nationwide who booked a hotel room with Defendant through its telephone reservation system or website and was charged the Telephone Surcharge.  Defendant changed its policies, practices and procedures relating to the disclosure of the Telephone Surcharge.  Defendant was also required to issue coupons to all class members that were equal in value to the amount that the class member paid in Telephone Surcharges.

Feld v. KSL, et al.

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC321565

Coordinated with Gray v. KSL, et al., Riverside Superior Court Case No. INC040908

Plaintiffs’ in this coordinated nationwide class action proceeding alleged that certain KSL branded resort properties charged consumers undisclosed resort fees.  Defendant, through a direct mailing, sent all class members discount certificates valued between $8 – $18.50 depending upon the dollar amount of the resort fees the class member paid.  Defendant instituted a policy and practice of full disclosure to guests of all resort fees.

Argyropoulos v. Homeq Servicing Corporation

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC332498

The Court certified a class in this nationwide class action lawsuit.  The nationwide class consisted of all persons who had a mortgage serviced by Homeq Servicing Corporation who were improperly charged late fees although the company had received the customer’s payment prior to the date in which a late fee could be imposed.  As a result of the lawsuit, Defendant changed its practices, policies and procedures to ensure that all payments are credited on the date of receipt regardless of when Homeq processes the payment. Class members received a cash refund of the late fees that were improperly assessed by Homeq.

Borowski v. Fazio Inc.

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC351030

The Court certified a class that consisted of all California consumers who: (a) had dry cleaning or laundry services performed by the Defendant; and (b) paid an “environ/fuel co fee” or similarly labeled surcharge.  This case involved allegations that Defendant failed to disclose to consumers prior to the rendering of services that certain Surcharges and/or Fees would be assessed in addition to the listed price of services.  As a result of the litigation Defendant stopped its practice of collecting the Surcharges and issued a $27 credit to all Class Members.

Akhavan v. Lakeland Tours, LLC

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC354961

Plaintiff brought a class action against Lakeland Tours, LLC alleging that Defendant improperly imposed fuel or energy surcharges over and above the agreed to price for an education travel program sold by Defendant.  The class consisted of all persons residing in California who purchased an educational travel program from Lakeland Tours during the time period from April 8, 2005 through March 6, 2006.  Counsel successfully negotiated a class settlement in which Defendant agreed to distribute discount certificates to each class member, via U.S. Mail, that could be used toward the purchase of any of Defendant’s educational travel programs or be redeemed for cash.

Berger v. The Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC384171 (approval of class settlement pending)

Counsel successfully negotiated a class settlement valued at $1.27 million.  Plaintiff brought a class action against The Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California alleging that the company improperly collected excess sales tax on discounted portions of sales made at it stores which were tax exempt.  The class consists of all persons who, from January 23, 2005 through August 31, 2008, purchased goods at any Pep Boys store in California which was subject to a Pep Boys-funded mail-in offer rebate offer and who paid sales tax on the discounted portions of their purchases.  Court approval of the class settlement is currently pending.