Nissan named in class action lawsuit over defective transmissions

Nissan-logo-loan large

This action arises from the sale or lease of more than one hundred thousand vehicles throughout the United States manufactured by Defendant Nissan that are equipped with defective transmissions. These defective transmissions were installed in all model year 2013 – 2014 Nissan Pathfinders sold or leased to consumers, including Plaintiff.

The defective transmission supplied in all of the affected vehicles is a continuously variable transmission (“CVT”) known as the “JATCO CVT8HT.” This CVT is defective in design, and as a result is prone to causing sudden, unexpected shaking and violent jerking (commonly referred to as “juddering” or “shuddering”) when a driver attempts to accelerate an affected vehicle. This pronounced juddering or shaking of the transmission prevents an affected vehicle from accelerating as intended by the driver, despite his or her input with the accelerator pedal. The combination of an affected vehicle’s transmission judder and its failure to accelerate according to driver input is associated with a “CVT belt slip condition” (the “defect”). This transmission defect creates an unreasonably dangerous situation and increases the risk of a crash; it is inevitable that an individual will be injured or killed due to a collision caused by this safety defect.

According to the complaint Nissan sold, leased, and continues to sell and lease the affected vehicle despite its awareness of the defect and the danger it poses to consumers and other drivers.

The class consists of All consumer residents in the United States who own, owned, lease, or leased a 2013 or 2014 Nissan Pathfinder.

Complaint: Nissan 12-18-14


Nest Labs Inc named in class action for defective product


This a class action against Nest Labs, Inc. for using false and misleading advertising, in website, print, and point-of sale promotional materials, as well as on product packaging, to promote and sell the Nest Learning Thermostat (“Nest”).

Nest is a wireless thermostat that can be remotely controlled from smartphones and tablets. In 2011, Nest was launched as a sleek “new generation” thermostat that was supposed to revolutionize thermostats.

As alleged, however, Nest released only a fancy, overpriced gadget that fails at even the most basic function of a thermostat: accurately gauging and controlling temperature. Nest promises that it will provide energy and cost savings that it does not provide. In fact, Nest increases energy use and costs because, contrary to the company’s representation that Nest uses “multiple temperature sensors to determine the ambient temperature with a high degree of accuracy,” customer reports that Nest is so defective that it cannot correctly gauge ambient temperature. Nest’s base and faceplate heat up, which causes Nest’s temperature reading to be from two to ten degrees higher than the actual ambient temperature in the surrounding room. This defect prevents the thermostat from working properly. As a result, Nest users do not experience the advertised energy savings.

Complaint: Nest Labs 4-21-14

IKO Manufacturing named in class action lawsuit over defective shingles



This is a consumer class action on behalf of all persons who purchased organic-based or matted shingles manufactured and/or distributed under various trade names by IKO Manufacturing Inc., IKO Industries Inc., IKO Industries Ltd., or IKO Midwest Inc., and IKO Production, Inc. (collectively “IKO” or “Defendant(s)”).

Defendants manufactured and marketed its Shingles under various brands and product names including but not limited to: Château, Renaissance, Renaissance XL, Aristocrat, Total, Armour Seal, Superplus, Armour Lock, Royal Victorian, New Englander, Imperial Seal 20, Cathedral XL, Ultralock 25, Armour Plus 20, Armourtite, Cambridge Ultra Shadow, Crowne 30, Vista, Supreme 20, Fastlock 25, Leading Edge, Nordic, Quantum 35, Seville 25, Superlock, Superseal, and Skyline for sale nationwide.

According to the complaint, all IKO Shingles are manufactured using the same basic formula: a base layer of organic felt saturated with asphalt, a middle layer of an oxidized asphalt coating, and a top layer of mineral granules with a strip of asphalt sealant.

IKO markets and warrants all the Shingles as durable, and as offering long-lasting protection for a specified life ranging from 20 to 50 years, or in some cases, for a lifetime. The industry and consumers recognize the warranty nomenclature as having the following meaning: a shingle with a 25-year warranty is referred to as a “25-year shingle.”

IKO’s sales brochures, marketing literature, and packaging furthermore claim that IKO Shingles meet very specific industry specifications and standards for sampling, testing and analysis. In particular, IKO represented to consumers that their shingles met ASTM D225-07 specifications for organic felt asphalt shingles and that IKO Shingles adhered to ASTM D228 testing procedures for sampling, examination, physical testing, and analyses.

As alleged, IKO did not adhere to ASTM D225-07 specifications and failed to comply with the advertised testing procedures. The Shingles manufactured and sold by IKO are defectively designed and manufactured such that they fail prematurely causing damage to the underlying structures.

The defects present in IKO Shingles are so severe that Plaintiff and members of the Class must repair or replace their roofs sooner than reasonably expected by ordinary consumers who purchase shingles generally and by consumers who purchased these Shingles specifically.


CLASS:  All individuals and entities that have owned, own, or acquired homes, residences, buildings or other structures physically located in the United States, on which organic IKO shingles are or have been installed since 1979. “Organic IKO shingles” is defined as all organic shingles manufactured or distributed by Defendants.



Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., Inc. named in class action lawsuit over defective windows

This is a class action against Kolbe, the manufacturer of defective windows

As alleged, Kolbe’s non-vinyl window products (including both all wood and wood and aluminum product lines) are defective, as they are prone to chronic air and/or water infiltration following installation, and as the wood portions of the Windows are inadequately preserved or protected. As a result of Defendant Kolbe’s failure to properly design, develop, test, manufacture, distribute, market, sell, and ensure that the Windows were properly designed, Plaintiffs’ windows are leaking, rotting, cracking, warping, and otherwise failing, causing Plaintiffs to suffer damages.

Defendant Kolbe warrants and advertises that its windows are free from defects in materials and workmanship, are of superior quality, require little or no maintenance, and are durable, reliable, and long-lasting.  Kolbe, however, refuses to honor its purported warranties.


Woodman Labs, Inc., d/b/a GoPro named in class action over defective product

GoPro promotes itself as the world’s leading manufacturer of “activity” video recording devices: compact, lightweight video cameras that may be worn by a human, installed on a vehicle, or linked to a computerized device or network.

Among several models of said devices, GoPro manufactures and sells the Hero3 video camera, which records video onto a memory card located inside the device. Due to problems with the Hero3, it does not operate properly or as advertised, and it is not suitable for the ordinary purposes for which it is used. Those problems include:

(1)    When the Hero3 is set to operate “looping mode” and once the internal memory card in the Hero3 is full, the Hero3 displays the message that “Not Enough SD Card Space”. The Hero3 is advertised to continue recording by overwriting the oldest data on the memory card. This feature does not operate as advertised.

(2)    When power is interrupted, the Hero3’s internal clock sometimes uses and displays the incorrect date and time, thereby mislabeling the time when video recording occurred.

(3)    The Hero3 unpredictably turns off during recording.

If the Hero3 performed as GoPro represented or advertised, then it could be used for surveillance, or it could be used as a “transit data collection device, meaning a device that allows motorists or other vehicle operators to record occurrences during the use of their vehicles.

As alleged, GoPro knows or has reason to know that the looping mode, date retention and uninterrupted recording features are desirable to consumers, for applications including but not limited to use for surveillance or as a transit data collection device. GoPro also has reason to know that the looping mode, date retention and uninterrupted recording features induce consumers to purchase the Hero3 camera. Finally, GoPro has reason to know that the Hero3’s looping mode, date retention and uninterrupted recording features do not operate properly oras advertised.

According to the complaint, because the Hero3 does not operate properly or as advertised, GoPro breaches warranties on the Hero3.

Onity Inc named in class action lawsuit over defective door locks.

Onity Inc. is the manufacturer of electronic door locks used primarily in hotels, motels, and other lodging businesses. The primary purpose of these locks is to secure lodging rooms and protect the occupants and their possessions. As alleged in the complaint, Onity Locks are defective and fail to perform as promised, leaving lodging guests, at risk.

The Onity Locks were defective and, as a result, experts in the industry have described the process of hacking them and gaining access to guestrooms containing the Onity Locks as, “stupidly simple.” As has been demonstrated repeatedly, including for public view across the Internet, the Onity Locks can be easily opened with a homemade hacking device, created with readily available, store-bought parts, rendering the locks worthless.

Whirlpool named in class action for defective dishwashers


This action is brought to remedy violations of law in connection with Defendant’s marketing, design, manufacture, sales, performance, servicing and warranting of its Maytag brand dishwashers. The Dishwashers sell for a retail price of $350-$800.

Plaintiff alleges Whirlpool engages in unfair and deceptive conduct when selling Dishwashers. He and other purchasers of Dishwashers were deceived at the point of purchase because while Defendant represents that the Dishwashers do not require frequent repairs, Defendant fails to disclose the material fact that the Dishwashers have defective control panels that fail prematurely and frequently and require frequent and expensive repairs.

Plaintiff further alleges that the Dishwashers are not fit for their ordinary purpose, do not pass without objection in the trade, and are substantially certain to fail within their useful life. Whirlpool did not disclose either prior to, or at the time of purchase, any information to Plaintiff or Class members regarding the Dishwashers’ defective Control Panels.