Plaintiffs in a recently concluded GE Class Action Lawsuit are entitled to receive cash settlements based on the sum of money they lose, in a tort suit against the company. The sum of money recovered will cover medical expenses and lost income for the plaintiffs, as well as all applicable lost wages and funeral costs. This is one of the largest class action verdicts in history and could potentially lead to further developments in the GE Company. The suit was filed by the Georgia Department of Labor and was brought by residents of Louisville, Ky., who suffered injuries as a result of the operations of the GE plant.
Plaintiffs and their lawyers are authorized to negotiate the terms of a settlement with the consent of the Claimant or his/her attorney. The procedures for settling a GE Class Action Lawsuit include (but are not limited to) discussing settlements, settling the claims individually, submitting an itemized claim form, and finally delivering a final claim form to be signed by the Claimant. These procedures must be followed precisely in order to ensure that both sides receive fair representation and that the litigation process moves expeditiously. Failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the case.
It is the role of the settlement administrator to supervise the distribution of the settlement to all relevant parties. When the settlement is being distributed, the settlement administrator contacts all parties, including the defendant or his/her attorney, and obtains signed writing admitting the liability for the damages. The settlement administrator then distributes the settlement among the parties involved. On the basis of that information, a court date will be set. Once that date has been established, a motion to dismiss can be made by either party to the lawsuit.
In addition to providing the right to pursue GE Class Action lawsuit, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan also authorizes plaintiffs to file a microwave class action lawsuit against manufacturers of microwaves. This manufacturer-defendant relationship arose when the manufacturers refused to pay royalties on their patents to the patent offices, on the basis that those patents were unpatentable. The plaintiffs in this case argue that the refusal to pay the royalties constitutes an unjust enrichment of the manufacturers. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the refusal to grant licenses in reliance on the non-exclusivity rule violated the Patent Act, and was thus a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that they were entitled to an allowance for 20 years as well as an annual allowance; that the refusal to grant royalty exclusivity was an unfair trade, and that the manufacturers violated the federal remedies for unfair competitive advantage.
However, the plaintiff’s complaint fails to give any indication of how much it would cost to litigate this case, and defendants have not indicated how much they expect to be awarded in this case. Thus, the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs’ complaint lacks merit is without any support. Plaintiffs have alleged that defendant manufacturers knew that they were failing to appropriately compensate with respect to the scope of their patents, yet chose to promote their products through GE Class Action lawsuit filing. As a result, the complaint in this case presents a dual issue: whether the denial of a license to a competitor violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment, and whether the promotion of defendant products in violation of the anti-trust laws of the federal government.
The plaintiffs in this case seek an award of approximately $2.75 million on a claim that involves the manufacture of “toxic” washing machines. While these allegations may seem extreme, the fact remains that thousands of people have been afflicted by harmful chemicals in their home cleaning products, such as vinyl chloride and trihalomethane. While no court has yet reached a conclusion as to the validity of the class action lawsuit, the fact remains that the plaintiffs are attempting to obtain compensation for injuries they allegedly have sustained as a result of the defendants’ negligence in marketing their products. It is worth noting that, according to the manufacturer’s defense, the evidence linking washing machine exposure to cancer is not reliable.
