FDA Announces recall on OmniPod Insulin Management System Units

The FDA announced on August 27 that the Insulet Corporation initiated a voluntary recall of some of its OmniPod Insulin Management System units.  This is due to the possibility that certain lots of the OmniPod may have a higher rate of failure.  This can happen when a cannula completely retracts or fails to fully deploy, which can result in the user not receiving the expected insulin dose.  Alternatively, the OmniPod may trigger an alarm indicating that it will no longer deliver insulin and will need to be replaced.  Either failure can result in hyperglycemia which can lead to diabetic ketoacidosis and an immediate need for medical treatment.  If you or a loved one has been injured by an OmniPod insulin management system, contact our medical device attorneys here at The Brandi Law Firm to discuss your potential case and any legal remedies you may have.

Click here to read the full recall: OmniPod Recall

OmniPod is an all in one tubeless insulin pump designed by Insulet Corporation. It consists of a completely tubeless”pod” that is wirelessly controlled by a Personal Diabetes Manager.

The following OmniPod lots have been voluntarily recalled:

Distribution Catalog Number Description Lot Number
United States POD-ZXP420 OmniPod® Insulin Management System L40806
L40811
L40895
L40976
L41014
L41025
L41067
L41162
L41171
L41197
L41198
L41250
International 14810 OmniPod® Insulin Management System L40771
L40892
L40901
L40905
L40997
L41199
L41208

OmniPods from the affected lots were distributed to customers from December 2013 to March 2015.

Contact Our Experienced San Francisco Drug Recall Lawyers Today

At The Brandi Law Firm, we help people throughout the country who have been harmed because of a defective drug or medical device such as Actos (Takata), Fosamax (Merck), DePuy (Johnson & Johnson), Lipitor (Pfizer), Yaz (Bayer) and Vaginal Mesh (Johnson & Johnson).  Instead of treating all victims of defective drugs and medical devices the same we take a different, more personalized approach with a team of experienced defective drug attorneys and paralegals working for every client.  Our goal is to provide you with information about your legal options and to help you pursue compensation and holding these drug companies responsible for their dangerous actions.  Please contact The Brandi Law Firm today (1-800-481-1615 or email us) to talk with the experienced San Francisco defective drug attorneys.

Trademark Notice

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

, , ,

Leave a comment

San Francisco DA Denounces Uber Background Checks

Previously, it was discovered that 25 Uber drivers in Los Angeles and San Francisco had previous convictions including sex offenders, identity thieves, burglars, kidnappers, and a murder when they received citations by airport police.  On August 18, San Franciscan District Attorney George Gascón along with Jackie Lacey of the Los Angeles District Attorney Office filed a First Amended Complaint for Permanent Injunction, Civil Penalties, Restitution and Other Equitable Relief against Uber citing these 25 criminal arrests.

Click here to read the Amended Complaint: Amended Complaint against Uber

At least four Uber drivers who were ticketed by LAX Police have previous criminal convictions – which would bar them from operating a taxi in Los Angeles and San Francisco.  According to the LA Times, these Uber drivers who were cited for violations at the airport, had been previously convicted of child exploitation, identity theft, manslaughter, and driving under the influence.  One Uber driver was convicted on 14 counts of felony identity theft in 2012.  Another was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in 1998 and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.  Although they would be rejecting from getting a taxi permit/medallion in other cities, these previously convicted felons can drive for Uber.

DA Gascón has stated that Uber’s background checks have “systematic failures”, and that the information presented by Uber to consumers “has been false and misleading”.  Gascón criticized Uber’s seven year background check, rather than the Live Scan screenings that taxi drivers need in San Francisco.

Click here to read the full article: DA: Major Flaws in Uber Background Checks Allow Criminal Driver 

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)

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

Trademark Notice

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

, , ,

Leave a comment

Britax to Recall 213,753 Car Seats due to Harness Defect

Britax is set to recall 213,753 of its Advocate ClickTight, Boulevard ClickTight, and Marathon Click Tight model convertible car seats due to a harness defect.  Only seats with the “Clicktight Dial” are included in the recall.  The reason for the recall is that in the affected models this “dial” may stick in the release position even after the harness is tightened and secured.  Because the dial remains in the release position, this will enable the shoulder harness not to be secured to the child and become loose.  Since the child is not properly restrained, it increases the risk that the child may be injured in the event of a motor vehicle accident.

Click here to read the full recall: Britax Safety Notice

The following models are affected:

britax car seats

These models were manufactured between August 1, 2014 and July 29, 2015.

Britax will notify registered owners and send them a remedy kit that includes a lubricant to apply to the harness adjuster button, free of charge.  Britax states that after this one-time application, the adjuster button will function normally.  Britax advises that they should follow the directions in the remedy kit or view their video at their recall website, www.BritaxClickTightConvertibleRecall.com.  The recall is expected to begin on August 17, 2015.  Owners may contact Britax customer service at 1-888-427-4829, option 3.

Previously, in March 2015, Graco was fined $10 million for failing to timely notify the public of a harness defect.

Americans rely on manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed product.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm have successfully represented many people injured from defective autos such as Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM, and their component parts. Additionally, we have successfully represented people injured by defective helmets, bicycles, motorcycles, fuel pumps, brakes, car seats, seat belts, air bags, table saws, pumps, industrial machinery used in the workplace, barbeques, heating systems, and numerous other household and industrial products.

Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective product design, the risks inherent in the design, feasible alternatives, and appropriate warnings.  In a car accident, we examine whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection.  In accidents where someone strikes a guardrail, people often do not consider the guardrail may be unsafe, installed improperly, or whether there is a contributing factor in the roadway design leading to a dangerous condition.  We have represented a number of people seriously injured in these types of accidents involving dangerous conditions of roads and crashworthy vehicles.  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

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

, , ,

Leave a comment

Mazda to Recall 193,484 CX-9 Vehicles in Salt Belt States

2013 Mazda CX-9

Mazda will recall 193,484 CX-9 vehicles in two different phases due to a corrosion defect.  The reason for the recall is that the affected vehicles have front suspension ball joints that will corrode from water leaking.  Because of the corrosion, the front lower control arm may separate and break which will cause the loss of steering control in the vehicle.  These vehicles being recall are only in the “Salt Belt” States, which are states are use salt to de-ice their roads during the winter.  These states include Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington D.C., West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Click here to read the full recall notice: Mazda Recall Corrosion

The affected vehicles are model year 2007-2014 CX-9 vehicles that were manufactured October 24, 2006 to December 28, 2013.

Mazda will notify owners, and dealers will replace both the left and right lower control arms, free of charge.  In early September 2015, owners will be mailed an interim notification informing them of recall.  When remedy parts are available, owners will be mailed a second notification.  The recall will begin with model year 2007-2009 vehicles registered in Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington D.C., West Virginia, and Wisconsin.  The second phase will be for model year 2010-2014 vehicles in the same states.  Finally, all remaining vehicles will be remedied.  Owners may contact Mazda customer service at 1-800-222-5500. Mazda’s number for this recall is 8515G.

Americans rely on manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed product.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm have successfully represented many people injured from defective autos such as Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM, and their component parts. Additionally, we have successfully represented people injured by defective helmets, bicycles, motorcycles, fuel pumps, brakes, car seats, seat belts, air bags, table saws, pumps, industrial machinery used in the workplace, barbeques, heating systems, and numerous other household and industrial products.

Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective product design, the risks inherent in the design, feasible alternatives, and appropriate warnings. In a car accident, we examine whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection. In accidents where someone strikes a guardrail, people often do not consider the guardrail may be unsafe, installed improperly, or whether there is a contributing factor in the roadway design leading to a dangerous condition. We have represented a number of people seriously injured in these types of accidents involving dangerous conditions of roads and crashworthy vehicles.  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

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

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

Chrysler to Recall 284,153 Dodge Chargers due to Side Airbag Defect

2014 Dodge Charger

On July 27, 2017, Chrysler announced that it will recall 284,153 Dodge Chargers due to a side airbag defect.  The Chargers were manufactured from May 6, 2010, to June 5, 2014.  The models affected are from their 2011 to 2014 line.

The reason for the recall is that the side impact airbag’s pressure sensors installed may be overly sensitive.  During normal driving, the side air bag inflatable curtains and seat air bags may unexpectedly deploy.  In addition, the seat belt pre-tensioners may activate.  Air bags that unexpectedly deploy increase the risk of a crash or injury.  There have been 3 minor injuries associated with this defect.

Click here to read the Defect Notice: Dodge Charger Defect Notice

Chrysler will notify owners, and dealers will update the Occupant Restraint Control module calibration, 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 R35.

Americans rely on manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed product.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm have successfully represented many people injured from defective autos such as Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM, and their component parts. Additionally, we have successfully represented people injured by defective helmets, bicycles, motorcycles, fuel pumps, brakes, car seats, seat belts, air bags, table saws, pumps, industrial machinery used in the workplace, barbeques, heating systems, and numerous other household and industrial products.

Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective product design, the risks inherent in the design, feasible alternatives, and appropriate warnings. In a car accident, we examine whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection. In accidents where someone strikes a guardrail, people often do not consider the guardrail may be unsafe, installed improperly, or whether there is a contributing factor in the roadway design leading to a dangerous condition. We have represented a number of people seriously injured in these types of accidents involving dangerous conditions of roads and crashworthy vehicles.  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 Fiat Chrysler Automobiles.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is not affiliated with this website, and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles.

, , ,

Leave a comment

Fiat Chrysler Must Offer to Buy Back Over 500,000 RAMs due to Safety Concerns

2012 RAM Truck

2012 RAM Truck

The federal government has ordered that Fiat Chrysler must offer to buy back over 500,000 RAM pickup trucks and other vehicles as part of their settlement with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to settle legal programs stemming from two dozen safety recalls.  In addition to offering the buyback to the RAM vehicles, Fiat Chrysler faces a civil fine of up to $105 million vehicles and owners of over 1 million older Jeeps with defective gas tanks will have the option to trade in their vehicle or be paid to the vehicles repaired.

Click here to read the full article: Gov’t: Fiat Chrysler Must Offer to Buy Back 500,000 Pickups

The reason for the buyback for the RAM pickups is that the trucks have defective steering parts.  Models included in the buyback offer are certain Ram 1500s from 2009 to 2012; the Ram 1500 Mega Cab 4 by 4 from 2008; and the Ram 2500 4 by 4, 3500 4 by 4, 4500 4 by 4, and 5500 4 by 4, all from 2008 through 2012.  Additionally, the 2009 Chrysler Aspen, the 2009 Dodge Durango SUV, and the Dodge Dakota pickup trucks from 2009 through 2011 are included in the offer.

The older Jeep models’ problem stems from a fuel tank issue.  When the Jeeps were manufactured, the fuel tanks were placed behind the rear axle, making the fuel tank more susceptible to a rear crash.  This increases the likelihood that the fuel tank can rupture and cause fires.  According to the NHTSA, at least 75 people have died in crash-related fires related to this defect.

Americans rely on manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed product.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm have successfully represented many people injured from defective autos such as Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM, and their component parts. Additionally, we have successfully represented people injured by defective helmets, bicycles, motorcycles, fuel pumps, brakes, car seats, seat belts, air bags, table saws, pumps, industrial machinery used in the workplace, barbeques, heating systems, and numerous other household and industrial products.

Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective product design, the risks inherent in the design, feasible alternatives, and appropriate warnings. In a car accident, we examine whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection. In accidents where someone strikes a guardrail, people often do not consider the guardrail may be unsafe, installed improperly, or whether there is a contributing factor in the roadway design leading to a dangerous condition. We have represented a number of people seriously injured in these types of accidents involving dangerous conditions of roads and crashworthy vehicles.  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

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

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

$2.7 Million in Sanctions Against Attorneys and Client Upheld For Discovery Abuses

At The Brandi Law Firm, we represent a number of people wrongfully injured by defective products, unsafe vehicles, or dangerous roads.  In virtually every case, pretrial discovery allows the parties an opportunity to obtain documents and data from each other, such as design plans, complaints, other similar incidents, patents, test results, proposed changes, internal memos, et. al.  Essential to the system working is reliance on the honesty of the producing party.  Courts will impose sanctions when a party does not comply, ranging from monetary sanctions to issue sanctions, e.g .a finding that a defendant was at fault or entering a default judgment.

In Haeger vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, (See 2015 DJDAR 8281), the Ninth Circuit upheld the United States Federal Court trial judge sanctions of $2.7 million for misconduct by defense attorneys and Goodyear for not turning over essential documents that were properly requested during discovery.

Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. wrote:

“It is clear the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Hancock, Musnuff, and Goodyear acted in bad faith in this litigation.  The Sanctionees, throughout numerous discovery dispute filings and hearings, convinced the district court that Goodyear had produced all test data relevant to the Haegers’ claims.  The district court noted that “[i]n fact, at various points the Court became exasperated with Plaintiffs’ apparently unsubstantiated claims that additional information must exist.”

It was not until the sanctions proceedings that the district court realized that the Sanctionees had

“adopted a plan of making discovery as difficult as possible, providing only those documents they wished to provide, timing the production of the small subset of documents they were willing to turn over such that it was inordinately difficult for Plaintiffs to manage their case, and making false statements to the Court in an attempt to hide their behavior.”

This case involved a crash of a motor home and allegations the Goodyear G159 tire was defective. After asking in discovery for various test data, being repeatedly assured all of it was produced, the Plaintiffs settled their case at the commencement of trial. Thereafter the Plaintiff’s lawyer learned of  tests involving the G159 tire that he felt were covered by his discovery requests but not provided and brought this matter to the Court ‘s attention, arguing that a fraud had been committed.

Even though the case had been settled, the Court looked into the matter, held hearings, and “then Chief United States District Judge Roslyn O. Silver, of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, handed down a sixty-six-page Order imposing sanctions ultimately calculated in the sum of $548,240 against attorney Graeme Hancock (Hancock), and $2,192,961 jointly against attorney Basil J. Musnuff (Musnuff) and The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear) (collectively the Sanctionees).  In the Order, which included forty-nine pages  of  findings of fact and seventeen pages of legal analysis, Judge Silver found that “there is clear and convincing evidence that sanctions are required to be imposed against Hancock, Musnuff, and Goodyear.  The Court is aware of the unfortunate professional consequences that may flow from this Order. Those consequences, however, are a direct result of repeated, deliberate decisions by Hancock, Musnuff, and Goodyear to delay the production of relevant information, make misleading and false in-court statements, and conceal relevant documents. Hancock, Musnuff, and Goodyear will surely be disappointed, but they cannot be surprised.”

In a footnote the Court of Appeal noted: “The district court began its order with the following powerful declaration, which warrants the attention of all members of the bar: “1 Litigation is not a game.  It is the time-honored method of seeking the truth, finding the truth, and doing justice.  When a corporation and its counsel refuse to produce directly relevant information an opposing party is entitled to receive, they have abandoned these basic principles in favor of their own interests.[] The little voice in every attorney’s conscience that murmurs turn over all material information was ignored.”

Some attorneys believe this is a rare decision, because the misconduct is so rare while others believe it is simply rarely discovered.

At The Brandi Law Firm, we have helped people throughout the country who have been harmed because of a defective drug or medical device such as Actos (Takata), Fosamax (Merck), DePuy (Johnson & Johnson), Lipitor (Pfizer), Yaz (Bayer) and Vaginal Mesh (Johnson & Johnson).  Instead of treating all victims of defective drugs and medical devices the same we take a different, more personalized approach with a team of experienced defective drug attorneys and paralegals working for every client.  Our goal is to provide you with information about your legal options and to help you pursue compensation and holding these drug companies responsible for their dangerous actions.

We have successfully represented many people injured from defective autos such as Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM, and their component parts.  Additionally, we have successfully represented people injured by defective helmets, bicycles, motorcycles, fuel pumps, brakes, car seats, seat belts, air bags, table saws, pumps, industrial machinery used in the workplace, barbeques, heating systems, and numerous other household and industrial products.

Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective product design, the risks inherent in the design, feasible alternatives, and appropriate warnings.  In a car accident, we examine whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection. In accidents where someone strikes a guardrail, people often do not consider the guardrail may be unsafe, installed improperly, or whether there is a contributing factor in the roadway design leading to a dangerous condition.  We have represented a number of people seriously injured in these types of accidents involving dangerous conditions of roads and crashworthy vehicles.

If you or a loved one has been wrongfully injured or if you have lost a loved one in your family, our attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Thomas J. Brandi Named to Top 25 Plaintiff Lawyers in California in Daily Journal Inaugural List

On July 15, 2015, Thomas J. Brandi was named to the Top 25 Plaintiff Lawyers in California by the San Francisco and Los Angeles Daily Journal, the legal newspaper for northern and southern California. According to the editors, “We could have honored more, but in our opinion, these are the ones who consistently force broad change in the law, industry, and society.…As you read about these men and women, there is a common thread – and it doesn’t have dollar signs; they truly care about having an impact.  The work they are doing to hold governments and industry accountable will last long after the bling is dimmed.”

Brandi said, “This is really recognition of all the outstanding work done by all of the lawyers, legal assistants, and all the members of The Brandi Law Firm team who are genuinely committed to working tirelessly to get the best result for our clients and holding wrongdoers accountable.  It is a team award not an individual one.  With the help of the great people at The Brandi Law Firm we have an opportunity to continue to represent wonderful clients and to try to make society a little safer, and little more just.”

At The Brandi Law Firm we represent people wrongfully injured by defective products, dangerous drugs, unsafe roads, and unfair business practices.

We have helped people throughout the country who have been harmed because of a defective drug or medical device such as Actos (Takata), Fosamax (Merck), DePuy (Johnson & Johnson), Lipitor (Pfizer), Yaz (Bayer) and Vaginal Mesh (Johnson & Johnson).  Instead of treating all victims of defective drugs and medical devices the same we take a different, more personalized approach with a team of experienced defective drug attorneys and paralegals working for every client.  Our goal is to provide you with information about your legal options and to help you pursue compensation and holding these drug companies responsible for their dangerous actions.

We have successfully represented many people injured from defective autos such as Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM, and their component parts.  Additionally, we have successfully represented people injured by defective helmets, bicycles, motorcycles, fuel pumps, brakes, car seats, seat belts, air bags, table saws, pumps, industrial machinery used in the workplace, barbeques, heating systems, and numerous other household and industrial products.

Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective product design, the risks inherent in the design, feasible alternatives, and appropriate warnings.  In a car accident, we examine whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection. In accidents where someone strikes a guardrail, people often do not consider the guardrail may be unsafe, installed improperly, or whether there is a contributing factor in the roadway design leading to a dangerous condition.  We have represented a number of people seriously injured in these types of accidents involving dangerous conditions of roads and crashworthy vehicles.

If you or a loved one has been wrongfully injured or if you have lost a loved one in your family, our attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm are available to consult with you.  Please contact our office at 800-481-1615 or email us.

, , , ,

Leave a comment

California Public Utilities Commission Judge Recommends that Uber be fined $7.3 Million and Suspended From Operating in California

On July 15, 2015, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) chief administrative law judge Karen V. Clopton recommended that Uber should be fined $7.3 million and be suspended from operating in California for failing to comply with the CPUC regulations.  According to the findings of Judge Clopton, Uber has failed to give regulators enough information about their service and operations designed to insure that Uber Drivers are acting in compliance with the law.  So far, Uber has failed to file all the reports required by the CPUC to operate in the state.  The proposed ban would remain in effect until Uber “fully complies fully with the outstanding requirements”.  Uber said it will appeal

Click here to read the full LA Times article: Uber should be suspended in California and fined $7.3 million, judge says

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)

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

Trademark Notice

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

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

Mitsubishi Recalls 459,618 Vehicles due to Sun Visor Defect

2005 Mitsubishi Eclipse

2005 Mitsubishi Eclipse

Mitsubishi will be recalling 459,618 vehicles due to a defect with the installation of the passenger sun visor.  The problem is that during a frontal accident resulting in frontal airbag deployment, there is the potential for the passenger sun visor to detach if the sun visor is in the down position.  Depending on the position and angle of the sun visor in the down position, the deploying passenger airbag may remove the sun visor, propelling the sun visor rearward.  In a worst case scenario, the removed sun visor could strike a passenger seated in the front passenger seat, increasing their risk of injury.

The following vehicles will be recalled:

Model Year 2000-2005 Mitsubishi Eclipse vehicles manufactured April 5, 1999, to December 17, 2004

Model Year 2001-2005 Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder vehicles manufactured January 19, 2000, to March 18, 2005

Model Year 2001-2005 Chrysler Sebring vehicles manufactured April 17, 2000, to February 21, 2005

Model Year 2001-2005 Dodge Stratus vehicles manufactured April 17, 2000, to February 22, 2005

Click here to read the full defect notice: Mitsubishi Defect Notice

A tether strap will be added to the passenger sun visor on each vehicle.  For the Eclipse Spyder vehicles, the sun visor holder will be also replaced with a countermeasure one at no charge to the customer.  Owners seeking reimbursement for any expenses associated with this recall will be directed in the notification letter to contact the Mitsubishi Customer Relations Department for instructions on how to apply for a refund.

Mitsubishi will notify their owners, and Chrysler will notify the Chrysler and Dodge owners.  The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule.  Owners may contact Mitsubishi customer service at 1-888-648-7820.  Chrysler and Dodge owners may contact Chrysler customer service at 1-800-853-1403.  Mitsubishi’s number for this recall is SR-15-005.

Americans rely on manufacturers to provide a safe well-designed product.  Sadly, that is not often the case.  The Auto Defect Attorneys at The Brandi Law Firm have successfully represented many people injured from defective autos such as Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, Hondas, GM, and their component parts. Additionally, we have successfully represented people injured by defective helmets, bicycles, motorcycles, fuel pumps, brakes, car seats, seat belts, air bags, table saws, pumps, industrial machinery used in the workplace, barbeques, heating systems, and numerous other household and industrial products.

Often times, people involved in accidents do not examine the issues of defective product design, the risks inherent in the design, feasible alternatives, and appropriate warnings. In a car accident, we examine whether the car was truly crashworthy – does it contain the appropriate crash protection. In accidents where someone strikes a guardrail, people often do not consider the guardrail may be unsafe, installed improperly, or whether there is a contributing factor in the roadway design leading to a dangerous condition. We have represented a number of people seriously injured in these types of accidents involving dangerous conditions of roads and crashworthy vehicles.  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

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

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 193 other followers