Ford Recalls 83,250 2012-2014 Vehicles due to Improper Installation of the Halfshaft

2014 Ford Edge

2014 Ford Edge

Ford announced it would recall 83,250 vehicles involving an installation defect of the halfshaft retention circlip.  During the manufacturing of the affected vehicles, the halfshaft retention circlip may not have been properly installed as designed.  As a result, the halfshaft may move outward and disengage from the linkshaft while driving and without prior warning.

If the halfshaft and linkshaft become disengaged while driving, power will no longer be transmitted to the wheels, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.  Additionally, if the parking brake is not applied before exiting the vehicle, the vehicle may roll away despite the transmission being placed in ‘Park’, increasing the risk of injury to exiting occupants and bystanders.

Halfshaft

Click here to read the manufacturer notice: Manufacturer Notice – Ford Edge

The following vehicles and model years are affected by this recall:

  • 2012-2014 Ford Edge and Lincoln MKX vehicles manufactured September 2, 2010, to November 30, 2013
  • 2013-2014 Ford Taurus and Lincoln MKS vehicles manufactured August 25, 2011, to November 30, 2013
  • 2013-2014 Ford Flex and Lincoln MKT vehicles manufactured September 12, 2011, to November 30, 2013

Ford will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the vehicles to make sure that the halfshaft is properly retained.  If it is not, dealers will replace the linkshaft and also replace the halfshaft if it shows evidence of spline damage, free of charge.  The recall began on August 4, 2014.  Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-800-392-3673.  Ford’s number for this recall is 14S10.

Previously in May 2014, Ford recalled 1,176,771 vehicles in two separate actions due to air bag and door defects.

Americans rely on their car manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed vehicle.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Ford is a registered trademark of Ford Motor Company.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Ford Motor Company is not affiliated with this website, and Ford Motor Company has no affiliation with the Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Ford Motor Company.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Chrysler Recalls Another 643,618 Vehicles due to Ignition Switch Defect

2006 Jeep Grande Cherokee

2006 Jeep Grande Cherokee

Last week, Chrysler expanded recall 11V-139 to include an additional 525,205 minivans due to an ignition switch defect.  This week, Chrysler has now added another 643,618 Jeeps suffering from the same ignition switch defect.

The issue is once again the ignition switch, which has been the topic of conversation of automobile recalls since GM’s bombshell back in February of this year.  In the affected vehicles, the driver may accidentally hit the ignition key with their knee, unintentionally knocking the key out of the run position, and turning off the engine.  If the key is turned into the off position, the vehicle will lose air bag, power steering and power braking capabilities, which increases the likelihood of a crash.

Chrysler is recalling their Jeep Grand Cherokee and Jeep Commander models. Jeep Grand Cherokees are from the 2005-2007 model line and were manufactured from February 11, 2004, to July 5, 2007.  The Commander models were made from January 31, 2005, to July 5, 2007, and their model years are from 2006 and 2007.

Chrysler has warned all drivers of these vehicles that until this recall is performed, drivers should adjust their seat to allow clearance between the driver’s knee and the ignition key, and remove all items from their key ring, leaving only the vehicle key.

Parts are currently not available and the schedule of repairing the defect is still unknown.  Chrysler will notify owners in September 2014.  The remedy for this recall is still under development. Owners may contact Chrysler customer service at 1-800-853-1403.  Chrysler’s number for this recall is P41.

Click here to read the defect notice: Chrysler Ignition Switch Defect

Nearly 40 million vehicles have been recalled in 2014 alone.

Americans rely on their car manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed vehicle.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Chrysler is a registered trademark of Chrysler Group LLC. The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes. Chrysler Group LLC is not affiliated with this website, and Chrysler Group LLC has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm. Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Chrysler Group LLC.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

BMW Recalls 573,935 Vehicles Due to a Passenger Side Air Bag Defect

2005 BMW M3

2005 BMW M3

BMW will recall 573,935 sedans, coupes, convertibles and Sports Wagons due to a defect in the passenger side air bag.  This is an expansion of BMW’s earlier recall back in April 2013.  The problem is to address a safety defect in the passenger side frontal air bag inflator.  The issue is the inflator may release excessive internal pressure that could cause the air bag inflator to rupture upon deployment of the air bag. In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the passenger’s frontal air bag, excessive internal pressure could cause rupturing of the inflator resulting in metal fragments striking and potentially seriously injuring the passenger seat occupant or other occupants.

Click here to read the defect notice: BMW Passenger Air Bag Defect

The vehicles involves in this recall include:

Model Year/Model                                                 Inclusive Dates of Manufacture

2000 – 2005 / 3 Series Sedan                                      Jun 1999 – Aug 2005

2000 – 2006 / 3 Series Coupe                                     Jun 1999 – Aug 2006

2000 – 2005 / 3 Series Sports Wagon                       Jan 2000 – Aug 2005

2000 – 2006 / 3 Series Convertible                           Dec 1999 – Aug 2006

2001 – 2006 / M3 Coupe                                              Feb 2001 – May 2006

2001 – 2006 / M3 Convertible                                    Mar 2001 – Aug 2006

Parts are currently not available to fix the defect.  BMW will notify owners, and dealers will replace the passenger side frontal air bag, free of charge. An interim notice will be mailed to owners in August 2014.  A second notice will be mailed when an adequate supply of parts is available, currently anticipated to be in October 2014.  Owners may contact BMW customer service at 1-800-525-7417 or email BMW at CustomerRelations@bmwusa.com.

Americans rely on their car manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed vehicle.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

BMW is a registered trademark of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Bayerische Motoren Werke AG is not affiliated with this website, and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG has no affiliation with the Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Bayerische Motoren Werke AG.

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Tom Brandi Again Named to 2014 Northern California Super Lawyers Top Ten

 

Tom Brandi was named to the 2014 Top Ten Lawyers for Northern California for the second consecutive year.  Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.  According to Super Lawyers, “The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.”  Tom Brandi has been in the Top 100 every year since the inception of Super Lawyers and this is his third appearance in the Top Ten.

 

The complete list of Top Ten Lawyers for Northern California were:

Brandi, Thomas J.

Cabraser, Elizabeth J. (Ranked Number 3)

Cotchett, Joseph W. (Ranked Number 1)

Dermody, Kelly M.

Keker, John W. (Ranked Number 2)

Minami, Dale

Pitre, Frank M.

Sonsini, Lawrence W.

Van Nest, Robert A.

Watters, Richard C.

Top 10: 2014 Northern California Super Lawyers Top List

Dan Dell’Osso, who was Best Lawyers Trial Lawyer of the year in 2012, was once again named to the Super Lawyers list. In addition, Brian J. Malloy and Casey Kaufman were again named to the Rising Stars, which recognizes up and coming attorneys under 40.

From left to right, Daniel Dell’Osso, Casey Kaufman, Brian Malloy

For more information about our firm, visit our website.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Chrysler Recalls 525,206 Vehicles due to Ignition Switch Defect

2010 Chrysler Town and Country

2010 Chrysler Town and Country

Stemming from a safety recall in June 2011, Chrysler has expanded recall 11V-139 to include an additional 525,205 minivans due to an ignition switch defect.  Similar to the GM ignition switch recall, this defect can affect the safe operation of the airbag system if inadvertent ignition key displacement occurs.  Road conditions or some other jarring event may cause the ignition switch to move out of the run position, turning off the engine.  If the ignition key inadvertently moves into the off or accessory position while in operation, the engine will turn off.  This will depower various key safety systems including but not limited to air bags, power steering, and power braking.

Click here to read the defect notice: Chrysler Ignition Switch Defect

The decision to now recall these vehicles is from a recent discussion with NHTSA.  On June 17, 2014, Chrysler and NHTSA participated in a conference call regarding the scope of the previous recall.  NHTSA requested that Chrysler include the recall to include certain model year 2009-2010 Dodge Journey vehicles manufactured June 29, 2007, to June 17, 2010, and 2008-2010 Dodge Grand Caravan and Chrysler Town and Country vehicles manufactured January 26, 2007, to June 17, 2010.

Customers have been advised to remove all items from their key rings, leaving only the ignition key until the defect is fixed. The key fob (if applicable), should also be removed from the key ring.  Chrysler will notify owners, and dealers will modify the ignition switch, free of charge.  The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule. Owners may contact Chrysler customer service at 1-800-853-1403.  Chrysler’s number for this recall is L25.

Americans rely on their car manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed vehicle.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Chrysler is a registered trademark of Chrysler Group LLC.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Chrysler Group LLC is not affiliated with this website, and Chrysler Group LLC has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Chrysler Group LLC.

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Graco Finally Recalls 1,910,102 Infant Car Seats due to Buckle Defect

Graco New and Improved

Current, new Graco buckles

Graco Children’s Products previously recalled 4,176,601 toddler and booster child seats due to a buckle defect earlier this year, but did not recall the infant child seats.  Now, Graco has now recalled 1,910,102 infant car seats because of a defect in unlatching the harness bucklethe same issue that plagued the earlier car seats recalled.  The buckle becomes stuck in a latched condition so that it cannot be opened by depressing the buckle’s release button.

Graco Children’s Products (Graco) is recalling certain rear-facing child restraints manufactured between July 2010 and May 2013, models SnugRide, SnugRide Classic Connect (including Classic Connect 30 and 35), SnugRide 30, SnugRide 35, SnugRide Click Connect 40, and Aprica A30.

car seat graco recall

Graco will replace the buckle with a new design, free of charge.  The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule. Owners may contact Graco at 1-877-766-7470 or online at gracobucklerecall@gracobaby.com, or at consumerservices@gracobaby.com.  Note: In addition, Graco will conduct a consumer satisfaction campaign to cover infant child restraints manufactured with AmSafe QT3 and Signature buckles.  Under this consumer satisfaction campaign, the company will provide a replacement buckle at no cost to any consumer upon their request for the useful life of the child restraint.  To see if your model may be covered, or for additional information, call Graco at 1-877-766-7470, visit www.gracobucklerecall.com, or email consumerservices@gracobaby.com.

The lawyers at The Brandi Law Firm have represented a number of people involving defective consumer products and people injured due to design defects in automobiles and consumer products.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Volkswagens, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design or child restraint to determine whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

Graco is a registered trademark of Graco Children’s Products Inc.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Graco Children’s Products Inc.is not affiliated with this website, and Graco Children’s Products Inc.has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Graco Children’s Products Inc.

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

GM Recalls Another 8.2 Million Vehicles; GM up to 29 Million Vehicles Recalled This Year

2014 Cadillac CTS

2014 Cadillac CTS

The epidemic continues.

Today is July 1, 2014.  GM has recalled 29 million vehicles in a period of six months in 2014.  Last year alone, all car manufacturers recalled approximately 22 million vehicles total.  GM has surpassed that number in just half a year.

On Monday, June 30, GM recalled another 8.2 million vehicles stemming from the catalyst of GM’s safety crisis, the faulty ignition switch.  The latest recalls are for “unintended ignition key rotation” and cover seven vehicles.  These vehicles include the Chevrolet Malibu from 1997 to 2005, the Pontiac Grand Prix from 2004 to 2008, and the 2003-2014 Cadillac CTS.

The saga of the GM ignition switch began in February when GM reported; at first that at least six people died because of accidents involving faulty ignition switches that involved run off the road accidents.  A few weeks later, the total number of deaths linked to this recall doubled, which brought multiple investigations from federal agencies and congressional hearings.

GM recalled vehicles stands at 29 million with half the year to go.

Where will GM end when the dust settles?

Click here to read the full article: General Motors Recalls 8.2 Million More Cars

Americans rely on their car manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed vehicle.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at the Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Volkswagens, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys at the Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

GM is a registered trademark of General Motors Company.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  General Motors Company is not affiliated with this website, and General Motors Company has no affiliation with the Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by General Motors Company.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

GM Tells Dealerships to Stop Selling 2013 and 2014 Chevrolet Cruzes Due to Air Bag Issue

2014 Chevy Cruze

2014 Chevy Cruze

For the second time this year, GM has ordered car dealerships to stop the sale of 2013 and 2014 Chevrolet Cruzes due to defective air bags.  GM has identified 33,000 vehicles in the US and Canada that may have been built with parts from the bad batch from their air bag supplier, Takata.  The issue stems from that the driver’s air bag inflator module was installed with the wrong part.  According to USA Today “A major factor in the size and expansion of the propellant recalls has been admitted bad record keeping by Takata, which has made it difficult to identify the vehicles that might have the suspect inflators.”

Click here to read the full USA Today article: GM Tells Dealers to Stop Cruze Sales for Air Bag Issue

This is the second stop-sale order on the Cruze this year.  The first was in March.  First GM ordered a stop of 2013 and 2014 models with the 1.4-liter engine.  It was followed a few days later with a recall of nearly 175,000 of the cars for a potentially defective right front axle shaft.

This is just the latest black mark in a record year for GM recalls.  GM has been involved in multiple investigations, recalls and hearings since February starting with defective ignition switches in older model vehicles.

Americans rely on their car manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed vehicle.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at the Brandi Law Firm has successfully represented many people injured from defective Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Volkswagens, GM products and numerous other manufacturers and suppliers.  Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective vehicle design nor whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto crash, our attorneys at the Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

Trademark Notice

GM is a registered trademark of General Motors Company. The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes. General Motors Company is not affiliated with this website, and General Motors Company has no affiliation with the Brandi Law Firm. Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by General Motors Company.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Uber Seeks A Protective Order to Block All Public Disclosure of Whether It Complies With Law

A group of San Francisco taxi drivers, who have undergone police background checks, drive cars with meters that have regulated rates to prevent consumer gouging, have the Statutorily required insurance to protect passengers as well as third parties in the event of an accident, and drive vehicles that have undergone periodic safety checks, all of which is required by law, are suing Uber on the basis it is a transportation company who has gained an unfair advantage by not complying with the law (e.g. not having insurance, not having the expense of inspecting and maintaining vehicles, or complying with other statutory requirements), and taken customers from the cabbies who are following the law.  (See San Francisco Superior Court NO. CGC 12-526017)

In the course of this case, Plaintiffs have sought information by way of written requests called Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents from Uber as to whether or not it has insurance, whether it does background checks, whether it inspects cars, etc.

Uber has refused to provide the information and has filed with the court for a Protective Order, stating: “Uber makes this motion on the grounds that the protective order Uber seeks is necessary to protect Uber from competitive injury resulting from the public disclosure of confidential information and documents produced in the course of discovery.”  Uber has asked the Court to make all materials “confidential” and place the burden on the drivers to seek Court intervention to overturn Uber’s confidentiality designation. Under the guise of protecting its competitive secrets from its competitors,  Uber seeks to blanket every aspect of its operation, including those designed to protect consumers and for which there is no competitive injury if the truth be known.  If Uber is successful, limited information will be turned over but the parties cannot disclose it and the public cannot learn if Uber has insurance, checks drivers, inspects cars, etc.

Does the public have the right to know if the Uber driver passed a police background check?

Does the public have the right to know if the Uber provided driver’s vehicle has the minimum $750,000 in insurance required by law? (Cabs usually have one million)

Does the public have the right to know if the Uber driver passed a police background check?

Does the public have the right to know if the Uber provided vehicle meets safety requirements?

San Francisco Transportation Code (“SF Code”) Article 1100 regulates motor vehicles for hire. Section 1101, subdivision (b), states that the “Purposes of [the] Regulations” are “to require all persons, businesses or corporations holding permits issued pursuant to this Article to take steps to improve taxi service to the public and to protect the public health and safety when providing such service.  By adopting this Article, the SFMTA is assuming an undertaking to promote the general welfare.” The SF Code then goes on to list countless regulations that implement this goal of protecting the public, including requiring drivers to: (1) successfully complete a SFMTA-approved driver training course (§ 1103, subd. (c)(1)(D)); (2) have no prior convictions that would present a risk to public safety (§ 1103, subd. (c)(2)(F)); (3) maintain the taxis in safe operating condition (§ 1113, subd. (a)(1)); and (4) carry adequate insurance (§ 1113, subd. (s)(1)(C). It is through these regulations that the SFMTA protects the public interest and promotes the general welfare.

The CPUC regulations pertaining to charter-party carriers are also grounded in protecting public interest. Division Two, Chapter Eight of the California Public Utilities Code (“PUC”) governs Charter-Party Carriers of Passengers, stating “[t]he use of the public highways for the transportation of passengers for compensation is a business affected with a public interest. It is the purpose of this chapter to preserve for the public full benefit and use of the public highways . . .” and “to promote carrier and public safety through its safety enforcement regulations.” (Emphasis added.)  The PUC acknowledges the need for standards governing charter-party carriers, as “[u]nlicensed charter-party carriers of passengers have exposed citizens of the state to unscrupulous persons” who “operate[ ] their vehicles without insurance or in an unsafe manner, placing the citizens of this state at risk.” § 5371.6, subd. (a). Similar to the SFMTA, the CPUC implements their goal of promoting public safety through the various regulations, including requiring the carrier to: (1) have a preventive maintenance program in effect for its vehicles (§ 5364, subd. (a)(1)(C)); (2) participate in a program to regularly check the driving records of all persons operating vehicles for compensation (§ 5364, subd. (a)(1)(D)); (3) have safety education and training programs in effect for employees operating vehicles (§ 5364, subd. (a)(1)(E)); (4) have a mandatory controlled substance and alcohol testing of drivers (§ 5364, subd. (a)(1)(I)). The PUC also requires charter-party carriers to carry sufficient insurance in the case of injury or death to the passenger and damage or destruction of property. (§ 5391.)  It is through these regulations and requirements that the CPUC regulates charter-party carriers for the public interest and general welfare.

If Uber’s request is granted the public would be prevented from knowing if Uber has complied with the law, has insurance, does background checks on drivers, information about the maintenance of the vehicles, etc.

The drivers, who are represented by The Brandi Law Firm, oppose Uber’s attempts to invoke a cloak of silence on its actions, because the public has the right to know if Uber cars are properly insured, if they meet safety requirements, if the drivers have passed police background checks, and if Uber is playing by the same rules as other transportation providers.  The San Francisco taxi drivers are not seeking to use this information to start a competitive company. They simply want to ensure that the playing field is level, and that Uber, with its wealthy backers and powerful political connections, plays by the same rules as the drivers.

If you would like more information on this case, please contact the Brandi Law Firm at tjb@brandilaw.com.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Judge Reverses Prior Ruling, Orders Full Discovery in Hershey Age Discrimination Case

In October 2013, at the insistence of Hershey, United States District Judge Charles Breyer ordered discovery limited to issues surrounding a release signed by some of the former Hershey high-level executives working as Customer Sales Executives (CSEs) and Category Development Managers (CDMs) in their age discrimination case against Hershey, entitled Barnes vs. Hershey (C 12-1334-CRB).

Each of the Plaintiffs in Barnes is over 40.  Before termination, all were long-term employees of Hershey, had exemplary work records, and were terminated under dubious circumstances.  For example, in one case, a long-term employee was forced to interview for what was essentially his own job and, when he was passed over for a younger employee, had to train his younger replacement.  In terminating these older workers, some signed Releases at Hershey’s insistence in order to obtain meager severance benefits.

During the early phase of this case, Hershey used the Release as a fulcrum to convince the Court that limited discovery would result in a more efficient and less costly determination.  But that was not the case.

Instead, Hershey used this limited Discovery Order as a shield to prevent much-needed information from disclosure, raised innumerable objections, resulting in multiple discovery disputes, and the proceedings ground to a virtual halt. As a result, Plaintiffs asked the Court to lift the order.  On May 9, 2004, Judge Breyer lifted the bifurcation of discovery order and made clear that the parties were no longer to proceed with a bifurcated discovery.

As a result, Plaintiffs can now get disclosure of the necessary facts behind their termination and find out the whole story as they proceed to an April 2015 trial date in San Francisco.

If you wish further information contact Brian Malloy at The Brandi Law Firm at 800-481-1615 (bjm@brandilaw.com).

Trademark Notice

Hershey is a registered trademark of The Hershey Company.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  The Hershey Company is not affiliated with this website, and The Hershey Company has no affiliation with the Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by The Hershey Company.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 164 other followers