Bronson & Associates

672 West 11th Street, Suite 330- Tracy, CA 95376
Telephone: 209-830-0400 Facsimile: 209-832-5000

When numerous people have a similar complaint they can join together in a class action lawsuit to pursue the claim. While there are various requirements that must be met in order to use the class action vehicle to sue, many types of cases such as defective products, misleading advertising and unfair business practices are successfully pursued in a class action setting.

To learn more visit the class action education section. If you are interested in participating in any of the causes below, click on the yellow link below and you will be taken to a contact page to register. An attorney from Bronson & Associates will thereafter contact you for a free consultation, including answering any questions you may have about your eligibility to participate as a class member or class representative for reimbursement of funds unlawfully taken.

 

 

BANK OF MARIN, BANK OF AMERICA, WELLS FARGO, BANK OF STOCKTON, BANK OF THE WEST, ET AL., Bank Customers of various banks, both local and nationwide, allege the banks use unfair, deceptive and unlawful business practices in assessing overdraft fees. They allege that rather than post checks and debit card point of purchase debits in accordance to when they hit the bank, as any customer would expect, many banks manipulate and re-organize the debits in accordance to the highest to lowest amount. Accordingly, the banks substract the highest amount to reduce available funds for the smaller ones,causing multiple overdraft fees instead of one charge for the largest one. For example, a checking account that contained $100 and had purchases of $5, $10, $30, $50 and $90, in that order, would normally expect a single overdraft fee on the $90.00 debit since their account would have only held $5, at the time the $90.00 was incurred. However, bank customers allege that the banks will change the order of subtracting the money from the account, from when it was presented to the bank to highest to lowest amount, thereby causing four overdraft charges of $35.00 or $140.00, rather than the one $35.00 fee.

The bank customers also claim that some of the banks have a policy of posting debits before deposits even when the deposit is received before the debit. This bank policy of manipulating debit posting before credits likewise unfairly and unlawfully causes overdraft fees. The bank customers further allege that these same banks fail to give accurate account balances on any given day because they change the order of posting transaction. Failure to give accurate account balances misleads customers into beleiving they have funds (and many times actually do have the funds until the bank changes the order of the transaction to highest to lowerst amount verses when received by the bank. If you have fallen victim to any of these unfair bank practices, and chances are, if you have incurred multiple overdraft fees within the past four years, you have been, please click here to be directed to our Bank Overdraft Contact page. You may be elibile to participate as a Class Member or Representative in our pursuit of reimbursement to consumers of banks' unfair assessment of overdraft fees.

GONE, INC., PHILIP AVILA, BORTON PETRINI, CHERYL KOFF dba G.O.N.E.et al., CHRISTIAN HURST dba G.O.N.E., et al. - Violations of California and Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts

JCM PARTNERS, GLENWOOD APARTMENTS, CARMICHAEL GARDEN APARTMENTS, et al. Security Deposit law violations (Cal. Civil Code ("CC") Section 1950.5 et seq), including failure to provide inspection rights on tenancy termination, retention of tenants' security deposits for excessive cleaning, painting and repair charges, retention of security deposit for $250.00 early lease termination fee which plaintiffs allege is void under CC Section 1671(d). The complaints allege defendants own, operate and manage over 4000 apartment units in approximately 38 apartment complexes throughout Northern and Central California. The suit is brought on behalf of (1) Defendants' tenants who were charged the $250.00 fee; and, (2) Defendants' tenants who did not receive their inspection rights under CC Section 1950.5 (f) and who were nonetheless assesed cleaning, painting and/or repair charges. The lawsuit seeks (1) an injunction prohibiting defendants from engaging in such conduct; (2) an order of disgorgement from defendants and restitution to their tenants; (3) penalties of double the security deposit under CC Section 1950.5(l); (4) a court declaration that the $250.00 liquidated damages fee provision is void under CC Section 1671(d); (5) an order certifying the action as a class action on behalf of the described groups above;(6) attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing suit; and (7) all other just remedies. Click here to contact us for more information or if you would like to register your personal complaint .