Service Corp International Litigation Regarding CPVC Class Action Lawsuit
Service Corp International, through their Service Corp LLC brand of products and services, offers a class action lawsuit against Dicks Sporting Goods LLC. This class action lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of the plaintiffs who purchased Dicks Sporting Goods (Dicks), a manufacturer of apparel, shoes, headgear, accessories, and sports equipment through the internet. According to the complaint, Dicks failed to provide a refund/reimbursement in the case of an unauthorized, and unauthorized resale. After plaintiffs became aware that this was not a genuine manufacturer of sporting goods, they filed a complaint against the defendant, calling it a fraudulent business entity and demanding that it be held liable for injuries caused by the faulty and dangerous sportswear manufactured.
Service Corp International Lawsuit Dicks Sporting Goods Lawsuit CPVC Class
The case was initially filed in the United States but later moved to the Eastern District of Michigan because the plaintiff’s residence resides in that state. The complaint further alleged that Dicks knew that its product was defective and did nothing to correct it despite knowing that thousands of people would likely use the product. While the complaint is based on state law, a motion to consolidate the case was denied by the court, with the United States Court citing that federal law preempts state law regarding class action lawsuits. On appeal, the court affirmed the plaintiffs’ claim and directed the parties to work out a mutually agreeable financial resolution between them.
Pursuant to the complaint and its Complaint Enclosures, Dicks owns or manufactures, and is marketed under the names “Dicks Sporting Goods,” “Dicks Apparel,” “Dicks Shoes,” “Dicks Lingerie,” “Dicks Perfume,” “Dicks Cologne,” “Dicks Perfum,” “Dicks Polo,” “Dicks Toes,” “Dicks Waterproof,” and “Dicks Luggage.”
The company is also a defendant in this case due to its ownership of interests in certain trademarks and domain names. As alleged in the complaint, defendants ignored warnings that it was unfit to market certain of its products due to the fact that they were unfit for consumer use because they contained lead, a substance known to be harmful to children. This suit seeks damages on the basis of negligence and damage entitlement. If the Court were to grant plaintiffs’ claims, it would be precedent-setting insofar as the liability of corporations for health-related defects is concerned.
Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence that the defendant has been negligent or liable in this case.
plaintiffs contend that they could easily distinguish their injuries from those of other people who have similarly suffered from a similar workplace injury and have been awarded a substantial settlement by the courts. However, personal injury attorneys who have had experience with cases such as this in the past, as well as consult notes from judges reviewing cases such as this one, disagree with plaintiffs’ assessment of their case. They note that there is no reason to expect a different result from this type of case than had they prevailed with their previous lawsuit against defendant C.P. Supply Company, as plaintiffs argue.
The District of Columbia Court found that plaintiffs’ claims for pain and suffering, as well as the corresponding medical bills and expenses, are not compensatory in nature.
Plaintiffs argue that there is a significant likelihood that they will recover significant damages from defendant C.P. Supply Company, including punitive damages. This is a novel holding in a Circuit Court. It was also noted that the case is being handled by a part of the Department of Justice that is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, more commonly known as the FDCPA.
It was also noted that although the injury attorney handling the lawsuit is a former Division II judge, he is not an “expert” in the area of assessing this type of damages.
plaintiffs should not rely on this factor when choosing an injury attorney to represent them. An experienced injury attorney with experience analyzing the FDCPA’s limitations on recovery in this type of case is the best choice. plaintiffs should do their research and carefully select an experienced attorney to handle this case.
