For any consumer legal concerns or problems that you may face, e-mail us at Fraud@Whalen-Tusa.com

---

 

Astoria Financial / Astoria Federal / LISB Consumer Litigation
    Whalen & Tusa, P.C. are court-appointed lead class counsel in the the certified class action styled McAnaney v. Astoria Financial Corporation, et al., pending in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
    The Class alleges claims under state and federal consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs are homeowners who obtained a mortgage from Astoria Federal or the former Long Island Savings Bank. Defendants’ mortgage and/or note agreements with Plaintiffs stated that they would not charge penalties for prepayment of Plaintiffs’ mortgages. Upon prepayment and satisfaction of Plaintiffs’ mortgage loan, Defendants allegedly imposed and collected penalties and fees they were not permitted to charge or collect in connection with the satisfaction and/or prepayment of Plaintiffs’ mortgage loans, such as Fax Fees and Attorney Document Preparation Fees.

 

    If you would like to discuss the case, please contact Paul Whalen, Esq. at  AF@Whalen-Tusa.com.

Washington Mutual Consumer Litigation
    Whalen & Tusa, P.C. are court-appointed lead class counsel in the the certified class action styled Cassese v. Washington Mutual, Inc. et al., pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The Class alleges claims under state and federal consumer protection laws. The Class are homeowners who obtained a mortgage from Washington Mutual. Defendants’ mortgage, deed of trust and/or note agreements with Plaintiffs stated that they would not charge penalties for prepayment of Plaintiffs’ mortgages. Upon prepayment and satisfaction of Plaintiffs’ mortgage loan, Defendants allegedly imposed and collected penalties and fees they were not permitted to charge or collect in connection with the satisfaction and/or prepayment of Plaintiffs’ mortgage loans, such as Payoff Statement Fees and Fax Fees.

 

    If you would like to discuss the case, please contact Paul Whalen, Esq. at  WaMu@Whalen-Tusa.com.

Quest Diagnostics Consumer Litigation
    Whalen & Tusa, P.C. are counsel to the putative class in Agostino v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., et al., pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
    The proposed class alleges that Quest Diagnostics (Quest) in agreement and collusion with various debt collection agencies (including but not limited to American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA) and Credit Collection Services (CCS)) demand, invoice and collect monies from consumers for laboratory tests performed by Quest. In many cases, the monies sought by Quest are covered by health insurance provided by private and/or Medicare Part B insurance providers. Plaintiffs allege that Quest and the debt collector defendants engage in practices such as balance billing, over billing, double billing and false billing of consumers, Medicare Part B recipients and minors.
 

    If you would like to discuss the case, please contact Paul Whalen, Esq. at  Quest@Whalen-Tusa.com.

 

Cambridge Credit Counseling Consumer Litigations
    Whalen & Tusa P.C. are court-appointed co-lead class counsel in Limpert v. Cambridge Credit Counseling Corporation, et al., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and court-appointed class counsel in a related action decided in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. 
    Whalen & Tusa P.C. and their co-counsel have obtained summary judgment on behalf of the certified class in the Massachusetts Zimmermann action, under the Credit Repair Organizations Act and the Massachusetts consumer deceptive practices statute. In Zimmemann, Judge Ponser granted the Class summary judgment in favor of the Class.   Whalen & Tusa P.C. and their co-counsel have obtained a summary judgment damages award of $256,527,086.00 to be returned to consumers.
    The Class consists of consumers and debtors who enrolled in Debt Management Plans (DMPs) sold or administered by Defendants for the purpose of consolidated and repaying their unsecured debts (i.e. credit cards). Judge Ponser ruled for the Class, stating that Defendants engaged in false, misleading and deceptive advertising as to their ability to help consumers repay debts more quickly, lower interest rates, eliminate late fees, improve credit, credit scores, credit records and credit histories, as well as wrongfully charging the Class excessive and/or undisclosed or inadequately fees.
    Whalen & Tusa P.C. and their co-counsel have recovered a partial class settlement in Limpert, where a single Defendant agreed to pay a minimum of $1,760,000 and to change deceptive contracts and advertising..

 

If you would like to discuss the judgment, please contact Paul Whalen, Esq. at  Cambridge@Whalen-Tusa.com.

 

Genus Credit Management / American Financial Solutions Consumer Litigations
    Whalen & Tusa P.C. are appointed class co-lead counsel in Jones v. Genus Credit Management Corporation, et al., a class action pending in the American Arbitration Association.
    The proposed class in Jones v. Genus consists of consumers and debtors who enrolled in Debt Management Plan (DMPs) sold or administered by Defendants for the purpose of consolidated and repaying their unsecured debts (i.e. credit cards). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in false, misleading and deceptive advertising as to their ability and intention to help consumers repay debts more quickly, lower interest rates, eliminate late fees, improve credit, credit scores, credit records and credit histories, repay debts quicker, obtain bona fide credit counseling, obtain services from legitimate non-profit organizations. While claiming their services were “free,” Defendants allegedly charged undisclosed fees to members of the Class.
 

    If you would like to discuss the case, please contact Paul Whalen, Esq. at  Genus@Whalen-Tusa.com.

 

The Wall Street Journal Online Subscriber Litigation
    Whalen & Tusa P.C. are counsel in Lebowitz v. Dow Jones, Inc., a class action pending in the United States District Court Southern District of New York.

    The proposed Class consists of those persons who pre-paid for full year subscriptions to The Wall Street Journal Online, who subsequently were blocked from accessing the previously-included Barron’s Online unless and until they paid an additional fee. Plaintiffs allege that Dow Jones, Inc., the parent of The Wall Street Journal Online and Barron’s Online, violated the contract with their pre-paid subscribers and engaged in deceptive and misleading practices.  Recently, Judge Cedarbaum ordered the Defendants to engage in settlement negotiations with putative class counsel

 

    If you would like to discuss the case, please contact Paul Whalen, Esq. at  WSJ@Whalen-Tusa.com.

 

The Title Insurance Provider Antitrust and RESPA Litigation
    Whalen & Tusa P.C. are counsel in Trulli v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et al., a class action pending in the United States District Court Southern District of New York that is coordinated with other similar cases.
    The proposed class consists of those New York residents who purchased homes and were charged title insurance at allegedly inflated rates due to collusion among various participants and providers of title insurance to residential home owners. The case also alleges that title insurance providers in New York violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by paying kickbacks and/or splitting fees with third parties who referred business to title insurance providers or who did not perform services in return for monies paid to them by title insurance providers.
 

    If you would like to discuss the case, please contact Paul Whalen, Esq. at  TitleIns@Whalen-Tusa.com.

 

American Express Antitrust Litigation
    Whalen & Tusa, P.C. are counsel to the putative class in Italian Colors Rest. v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co. (In re Am. Express Merchants' Litig.) pending in the Southern District of New York.
    The proposed Class alleges inter alia, claims under federal antitrust laws. Plaintiff merchants allege anticompetitive acts of Defendant regarding fees charges on credit versus charge cards. In its recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled for Plaintiffs, holding that that the question of the enforceability of a class action waiver provision is properly decided by the Court and Defendant's contractual waiver provision is unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act.
 

    If you would like to discuss the case, please contact Paul Whalen, Esq. at  AmEx@Whalen-Tusa.com.

[ Home ]

[ Home ]