Sacramento Car Accident Lawyers at the Scranton Law Firm Are Announcing Free Consultations to Sacramento Car Accident Victims Who Are Considering a Lawsuit or Settlement Using A Sacramento Car Accident Lawyer


Sacramento Car Accident Lawyers at the Scranton Law Firm Are Announcing Free Consultations to Sacramento Car Accident Victims Who Are Considering a Lawsuit or Settlement Using A Sacramento Car Accident Lawyer













Sacramento Car Accident Lawyers


Sacramento, California (PRWEB) June 12, 2012

Sacramento car accident lawyers at The Scranton Law Firm are providing free consultations including a case evaluation to people in Sacramento who have been involved in a car accident. The Scranton Law Firm provides services for no cost unless they win your case. This means that calling for information after an accident does not cost money. “We provide free consultations from an experienced Sacramento car accident lawyer. This helps our potential clients better understand their options without obligating them to anything. If they decide to hire us we only get paid if they get paid,” says Tony of The Scranton Law Firm. According to Tony most people are scared to call Sacramento car accident lawyers because they have never dealt with a lawyer before. The free consultation allows people to explore their options so they can choose the right attorney.

Sacramento personal injury lawyers at The Scranton Law Firm have many positive online lawyer reviews and testimonials from accident victims. It is important to choose your Sacramento car accident lawyer wisely because the insurance company is unlikely to pay your claim without a fight. “People pay insurance premiums to insurance companies, that is how the insurance company makes money. The less they pay to accident victims the more money they make, their job is to pay out as little as possible,” says Tony. “Insurance companies fear our experienced Sacramento car accident lawyers and they know we mean business.”

In addition to being experienced Sacramento motorcycle accident lawyers The Scranton Law Firm is a full service personal injury law firm who represents victims in accident related lawsuits for all types of injuries. The free consultation applies to any types of injury. One of the most common injuries sustained in a car accident is minor spinal injury called whiplash. The Scranton Law Firm employs many experienced Sacramento whiplash lawyers. Call them today to take advantage of their offer for a free consultation today.

To learn more about the Sacramento accident settlement lawyers at The Scranton Law Firm please visit their website, see their customer testimonial videos or read their many positive online Sacramento car accident lawyer reviews.

Scranton Law Firm

400 Capitol Mall # 1800 Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 961-5674











Attachments


























Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.










General Patent Corporation Settles Patent Infringement Lawsuit with Pricegrabber.com


General Patent Corporation Settles Patent Infringement Lawsuit with Pricegrabber.com










Suffern, NY (PRWEB) June 01, 2012

General Patent Corporation (GPC), a leading patent licensing and enforcement company, announced today on behalf of its subsidiary, Data Distribution Technologies LLC (DDT), that it settled a patent infringement lawsuit with Pricegrabber.com, Inc. of Los Angeles, Calif. Under the settlement agreement, Pricegrabber.com paid DDT’s standard 1% royalty on its past and future sales.

This settlement resolves a lawsuit, Data Distribution Technologies LLC v. Pricegrabber.com, Inc. (Case No. 11 civ. 09650), filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in December 2011. The patent-at-suit is U.S. Patent No. 6,529,908 titled “Web-Updated Database with Record Distribution by Email.”

“We are pleased to settle our infringement claim with Pricegrabber.com,” said Anthony Amaral, Chief IP Counsel at General Patent Corporation. “This settlement resolves the third of three lawsuits we filed to date for infringement of this patent.”

About General Patent Corporation

General Patent Corporation, headquartered in Suffern, N.Y., is a leading intellectual property boutique focusing on patent licensing and enforcement. GPC represents inventors, businesses, universities and other patent owners in patent assertion matters by managing and financing patent litigation on a contingency basis. GPC is the oldest patent enforcement firm in the U.S. Founded in 1987, General Patent is celebrating its 25th Anniversary in 2012. GPC is the managing member of Data Distribution Technologies LLC. For more information, visit http://www.generalpatent.com.

About Data Distribution Technologies LLC

Data Distribution Technologies LLC is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,529,908 titled “Web-Updated Database with Record Distribution by Email.” DDT is a client and subsidiary of – and is managed by – General Patent Corporation. A non-exclusive license under this patent is available on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. For licensing terms, please contact GPC Director of Licensing, Kathlene Ingham, at (845) 368-4000 x107. For more information, please visit http://www.datadistributiontech.com.

###























Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.










For-Profit Colleges Lawsuit by DOJ


The Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against for-profit colleges under the Education Management Corporation umbrella for deceptive recruiting practices. Are students being scammed for a profit? Ana Kasparian and Jayar jackson discuss.
Video Rating: 4 / 5


Court Dismissed Aetna ?$99,750 Ear Wax Fraud? Lawsuit Against Hospital and Doctors


Court Dismissed Aetna “$ 99,750 Ear Wax Fraud” Lawsuit Against Hospital and Doctors












Hanover Park, IL (PRWEB) April 16, 2012

On 04-13-2012, a Texas Court dismissed Aetna’s landmark “$ 99,750 Ear Wax Fraud” case against an out of network (OON) hospital and two surgeons, alleging that the hospital charged $ 99,750 for an ear wax removal and seeking temporary injunction to stop the hospital’s patient discount practice without collecting full deductible and co-insurance from all patients. The Court dismissed the entire Aetna lawsuit after Aetna voluntarily filed a Notice of “Plaintiff’s non-suit without prejudice” as a result of the dramatic court proceedings for the defendant hospital and two surgeons. New Webinars were announced to examine this breaking development.

According to the Court document filed on 04-13-2012, Aetna “announced to the Court that they no longer wish to pursue any of the claims asserted by them against Defendants Ifeolumipo O. Sofola, M.D., Navin Subramanian, M.D. and Humble Surgical Hospital, LLC. This non-suit terminates the case upon filing”.

The Court Case info: AETNA HEALTH INC vs. SOFOLA, IFEOLUMIPO O (MD) (Case #: 2011-73949 / Court 152)

ERISAclaim.com offers webinars to examine its impact of this 2012 healthcare landmark case on the patient’s rights to choose and payers’ litigation explosions nationwide over the provider’s patient discount practice, because more than 77% of the insured Americans in private sectors have paid for the rights to receive care from the out of network hospitals and providers, and “Harvard researchers say 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 were caused by health problems—and 78% of those filers had insurance”.

(http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm)

“This Court decision, along with all other pending Aetna cases across the nation, is very important for the 77% of the insured Americans in the private sectors with out-of-network coverage. Is it legal for hospitals and doctors to offer indigent discount to non-Medicare patients? Even it is perfectly legal to do so for all Medicare patients.” says Dr. Jin Zhou, President of ERISAclaim.com, a national expert on PPACA and ERISA appeals and compliance. (http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2004pres/20040219.html)

On Dec 7, 2011, Aetna filed this lawsuit in the District Court, Harris County, Texas. Aetna lawsuit seeks for temporary injunction to stop the hospital’s patient discount practice and PPO surgeon’s OON referrals, alleging breach of contract, conspiracy to overcharge, tortious interference, and common law fraud, including “a bill for $ 99,750 for the removal of ear wax”.

On Feb. 02, 2012, Aetna filed a “$ 66,100 bunion surgery” lawsuit in California against seven California surgery centers, seeking to stop the alleged UCR billing without collecting full deductible and co-insurance from all patients. The court case info: Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Bay Area Surgical Management LLC, File 02/02/2012, Case #: 112CV217943, The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara.

According to the Crain’s New York Business on Feb. 07, 2012, Aetna also quietly filed similar lawsuits last year in the State of New Jersey and New York against several out-of-network doctors for allegedly aggressive collections from out of network patients.(http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20120207/HEALTH_CARE/120209916)

On March 7, 2012, NY State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced that the Department of Financial Services (DFS) is investigating unexpected out-of-network medical costs affecting New Yorkers across the state, many of whom cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket expenses. In addition, DFS released a report finding that insurance companies are the first one to be responsible, and the healthcare providers are also responsible for unexpected out-of-pocket expenses driving so many patients into bankruptcy. The report finds an overwhelming need for increased transparency from insurers and medical service providers, and improved consumer protection measures to ensure that New Yorkers stop receiving unexpected bills. (http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press/pr1203071.htm)

According to the Press release on 03/07/2012 from NY State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo:

“Insurers are paying less of the cost of out-of-network care: The investigation found that insurers are moving to a system that greatly increases how much it costs consumers when they are treated out-of-network. To determine what they would pay for out-of-network care, most insurers used to use what is known as the usual and customary rate (UCR), which is supposed to be an average of actual bills for a procedure in that region. But now most are using the Medicare rate, which decreases how much insurers pay by as much as half or more in some cases. Insurers make this change hard for consumers to understand, because some are told they are going from 80% of the usual and customary rate to 140% of Medicare, which sounds like an improvement, but is not.”

The ERISAclaim.com Webinars will cover Aetna’s legal logics of fraud allegations, and compliant patient discount practice as well as proper out of network referrals only as the patient informed choice, in order to avoid being accused of any healthcare fraud, and to ensure that all patients are protected from any unexpected bills.

To find out more about PPACA Claims and Appeals Compliance Services from ERISAclaim.com:

http://www.erisaclaim.com/products.htm

Located in a Chicago suburb in Illinois, for over 12 years, ERISAclaim.com is the only ERISA & PPACA consulting, publishing and website resource for healthcare providers in the country. ERISAclaim.com offers free webinars, basic and advanced educational seminars and on-site claims specialist certification programs for doctors, hospitals and commercial companies, as well as numerous pending national ERISA class action litigation support. Dr. Jin Zhou is regarded as the industry “Godfather of ERISA claims” for healthcare providers.

For any questions, please contact Dr. Jin Zhou, president of ERISAclaim.com, at 630-808-7237.





















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.








How can one obtain a copy of an eviction lawsuit for a place of business?


Question by silvermyst: How can one obtain a copy of an eviction lawsuit for a place of business?

Best answer:

Answer by Landlord
You simply look up the case number in the country civil courts. Many counties have this online.

From there you have a copy printed up for you. They charge per page (usually 10 cents) so the cost of obtaining the record varies.

If it was more then a couple of years ago you may have to wait until the clerk gets to it.

What do you think? Answer below!


Closing business : Lawsuit pending?


Question by nancy: Closing business : Lawsuit pending?
I have a business in X state and a lawsuit is pending in state Y. I have hired a lawyer from state Y who has filed a motion to dismiss. (reason: no personal jurisdiction) . The ruling is pending. My business(LLC )is not doing good and I plan to close it. Can I close a business when a lawsuit is pending?
Thanks in advance

Best answer:

Answer by Eddie
http://WWW.SUEEASY.COM

All you need for the best in legal help. Free

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqUPOvG5muY

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!


NYC-Area Small Business Details Lawsuit Against Its Bank


NYC-Area Small Business Details Lawsuit Against Its Bank











New York, NY (PRWEB) February 22, 2012

Color-Web, Inc., a division of 1800Postcards.com, today announced details of ongoing litigation against its bank. Color-Web has sued People’s Capital and Leasing Corp., a unit of People’s United Financial, Inc., alleging fraud and breach of contract. The amount of the claim is $ 13.8m.

Color-Web alleges that People’s Capital and Leasing Corp. reneged on a financial commitment to provide to it almost $ 4m in funding for new technology, a state-of-the-art, custom-built printing press, in 2007. The bank provided a $ 200,000 deposit at that time, the suit alleges. Upon receiving this commitment, Color-Web changed its business operations to accommodate the new technology.

Color-Web contends the bank then pulled the financing as other printing businesses began to suffer financially, in violation of the agreement.

“It is important to note that, in my estimation, the decision to pull back the financing in question was not related to the business performance of Color-Web,” David Moyal, president of Color-Web, explained.

Because the strategic business changes that it made were not quickly reversible, Color-Web believes it experienced material loss as a result of the bank’s decision to pull the financing. Color-Web has had to lay off nearly 100 workers in the New York Metro area since the funding was pulled. The company is currently exploring closing up. The parent company of Color-Web, 1800Postcards.com, is the largest commercial printing company still standing in the New York City area.

Statement from Moyal:

“In my view, a bank’s role is to facilitate commerce. When a bank does something that impedes commerce and destroys the value that a business has earned over many years, its role in the marketplace becomes extremely damaging,” said Moyal. “This lawsuit is not just about Color-Web’s claims against a bank. It is in defense of the notion that when institutions prey on small businesses and innovators, the most reliable engines of job creation, they should be held accountable for damages that result.

“If our bank is allowed to renege on a commitment to us, then any business’s bank will be able to renege on a commitment to them. Banks, as licensed institutions, should be held to a higher standard, and a signed commitment should be followed through on. 1800Postcards.com signed its first notes with People’s Capital in 2003 – and we honored those commitments, in spite of the economic downturn that ensued.”

He continued: “We arrived at the amount of our claim by estimating what four years of savings on production costs would have totaled, had we been able to use the new technology to grow our business and compete in our highly competitive industry. This is probably not a lot of money to a large institution such as People’s Capital, but their decision to pull our financing was enough to put my business under and everyone who it employed out of work.”

Further Details:

Color-Web’s claim is a counter-claim to a previous lawsuit filed by People’s that sought to recover the initial $ 200,000 deposit on the printer. The original claim was filed in New York State Supreme Court on Sept. 27, 2011 and the counter-claim was filed on Dec. 9, 2011. Both claims share the Index No. 652645/11. Contact Andrew Graham to request copies of these documents.

About Color-Web and 1800Postcards.com:

Color-Web is a mid-sized commercial printing operation in the New York City metro area. It is a unit of 1800Postcards.com.

1800Postcards.comis a leading professional printer with more than 30 years of business experience as full-service offset printers and over 200 years of combined knowledge in production. Its state-of-the-art, 125,000 square-foot facility is located in the heart of New York City, with an additional web offset plant in New Jersey. This allows the company to print and mail the highest quality postcards on the market today at the most competitive rates in the country.

###




















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.








So, anyone actually think we will see a NWN3, or will this lawsuit business ruin it all?


Question by ThePowerFull: So, anyone actually think we will see a NWN3, or will this lawsuit business ruin it all?
Just a player of both the first and 2nd games, i enjoyed the stories, the company of Elanee and Neeshka on quests. Hated the first act of the 2nd game tho, played through it to much lol

Best answer:

Answer by ice cold pie
would it be stupid of me to ask what NWN3 is?

Add your own answer in the comments!


Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Universal Surveillance Systems, Paving Way for Antitrust Lawsuit Against Checkpoint Systems


Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Universal Surveillance Systems, Paving Way for Antitrust Lawsuit Against Checkpoint Systems










Rancho Cucamonga, CA (PRWEB) February 22, 2012

An antitrust lawsuit filed by Universal Surveillance Systems LLC (USS) against Checkpoint Systems, Inc. (CKP) was found by U.S. District Judge John Adams of the Northern District of Ohio to meet all of the necessary requirements to proceed on all claims despite Checkpoint’s motion to dismiss.

The lawsuit by USS alleges that Checkpoint illegally attempted to suppress USS and other would-be competitors through unfair distribution agreements and a systematic campaign of exclusionary conduct to stifle competition in the market for electronic article surveillance (EAS) systems sold to food and drug retailers. According to the suit, the actions by Checkpoint, which controls at least 80 percent of the EAS market, allegedly resulted in driving up prices for security tags, limiting choices for customers, and thwarting competition in the market.

According to the lawsuit, Checkpoint attempted to thwart competition by proposing unfair distribution agreements that would have prohibited USS from selling any competing goods to Checkpoint customers while not obligating Checkpoint to distribute USS products. After USS refused, Checkpoint allegedly resorted to a systematic campaign of exclusionary conduct to stifle competition from USS and other competitors by entering into long-term, exclusive contracts that prohibited their retail store customers from doing business with rival EAS tag suppliers and bundling their EAS tags with their EAS monitoring systems to dominate the industry.

“Judge Adams’ ruling is critical to assure fair competition in the EAS industry,” said Adel Sayegh, President and CEO of USS. “Under U.S. antitrust laws, no single company has the right to unfairly suppress its competitors. When that happens, the American public loses. We believe that, as a result of Checkpoint’s alleged actions, retailers have paid inflated prices for inferior Checkpoint EAS tags. We look forward to moving ahead on this lawsuit and restoring healthy competition to the EAS industry.”

The case is Universal Surveillance Corp. v. Checkpoint Systems Corp., case number 5:11-cv-01755, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

About Us:

Universal Surveillance Systems (USS) is the largest privately held innovator of loss prevention solutions. Since 1995, USS has maintained the vision of providing unsurpassed technical innovation with unrivaled customer support to Fortune 500 clients, worldwide leading retailers, and local communities. USS offers total security solutions designed to deter theft, prevent loss, and increase profitability. To learn more about the complete line of USS electronic article surveillance (EAS) tags, closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems and loss prevention solutions, visit USS at http://www.universaleas.com.

###





















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.








What is a settled trademark lawsuit in the food or hotel business?


Question by Time to dance: What is a settled trademark lawsuit in the food or hotel business?
I am having a hard time finding a case in the hospitality industry(food, casino, club, hotel) that involves trademarks or other intellectual property and has been fully closed and not waiting for appeal, anybody know some?

Best answer:

Answer by sitcpsitcb
A simple Lexis search should turn up about 100,000. If your school doesn’t have Lexis access (most do – check with your research librarian) you can just use Google.

Depending on your definition of “hospitality” you can start with the recent Chippendales case. That one was all over the news and you should have no trouble finding it.

What do you think? Answer below!