PM me if interested in joining potential class action suit v. Neteller

[ChipsChick]

At this point, getting the money back through a lawsuit isn't what it's about. Neteller has violated its own terms of service by denying US customers immediate access to their funds (or am I the only the one who's read the terms of service?), and there is every right for them to be sued for that in whatever court is most appropriate. It's not about getting $5 a year for the next hundred years, it's about making sure that other firms are not so cavalier in how they do business with our earnings.

[KingMoore]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe he didnt take notes on the first thing they taught him.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[KingMoore]

[ QUOTE ]
At this point, getting the money back through a lawsuit isn't what it's about. Neteller has violated its own terms of service by denying US customers immediate access to their funds (or am I the only the one who's read the terms of service?), and there is every right for them to be sued for that in whatever court is most appropriate. It's not about getting $5 a year for the next hundred years, it's about making sure that other firms are not so cavalier in how they do business with our earnings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that's fine for you and all... the moral victory. But I don't think the majority of people here are going to be happy that Neteller gets taught a lesson at the expense of their bankrolls.

I have seen this class action crap go down before and it really sucks. It generally takes advantage of a bunch of people who are already being screwed by a company, causes the company to fold, and guarantees those people will never see the majority of their money.

There are a few posters here speaking the truth. Listen to them and don't drink the Koolaid the lawyers are pouring you.

[Rigel]

Man, you can't swing a dead cat in this thread without hitting several lawyers. There's a bunch of us on here.

[duffjr]

I saw Erin Brokovich. I can lose my job in the mines for this, and how will I be able to pay my children's medical bills from the radiation from the computers they were using while accessing Neteller over extended periods?

[JPT III]

[ QUOTE ]
OP,

Do you mean a multiple-plaintiff lawsuit rather than a class action? To file a class action, you really don't need more than couple of representative plaintiffs.

Also, class actions are a scam. They usually do not benefit the plaintiffs they preport to represent. What usually happens in class actions is that the lawyers will negotiative with the defendant for a settlement whereby the lawyers get a multi-million dollar fee and the defendant is now insulated from future actions. The plaintiffs are usually paid in coupons (literally) or pennies.

If a class action is filed, and a settlement reached, I fear that those supposed plaintiffs will get royally screwed. The settlement may look something like this: the plaintiff attorneys get $4M, all US depositors will be paid 5 cents on the dollar, and Neteller is now immune to legal action by US depositor who did not have the fore knowledge to opt out of that class action.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply incorrect. The court has to sign off on any settlement, as well as any attorney fee award. Also, any plaintiff within the class can choose not to participate in the proposed settlement, and his or her rights as against Neteller would be unaffected by the settlement.

[b0000000000m]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again if you dont mind, which court will you be filing in?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm also an attorney. FYI, to those of you who don't think US courts have jurisdiction over Neteller -- you're dead wrong. OP could file in pretty much any Federal court. Neteller's substantial and continuous contact with US customers establishes jurisdiction.

For Christ's sake, the first thing they teach you in Civil Procedure is the case where an Argentenian helicopter company was successfully sued in Federal court, even though it had no US based offices and did no business with US suppliers. Minimum contacts doctrine ftw.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you're referring to Helicopteros Nacionales (466 U.S 408) you'd be wrong. SCOTUS held in that case that the Colombian company's mere purchases of helicopters in TX did not satisfy the minimum contacts test and consequently fell outside the reach of their long-arm statute

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I agree that PPG is wrong about the outcome of the case with respect to the particular parties, and it's not true that jurisdiction was established over the helicopter company, I would have to say that the doctrine established in the same case WOULD help anyone trying to sue Neteller. Neteller's service of US customers does satisfy the minimum contacts test of Helicopteros. PPG was right insofar as the case sets up the minimum contacts standard in such a way as it's plainly satisfied by the facts of Neteller's situation.

Don't you agree? I'm guessing your post was merely a correction of the facts of the case, rather than a dismissal of the claim that Neteller can be reached by U.S. courts, because it seems plainly the case that that's true.

[jaminbird]

Class actions are only a scam if you have suffered sufficient damages such that it would be economically feasible to bring a suit of your own. When a company screws 10,000 people out of $10, $100, or even a $1,000 it wouldn't be worth it for individual plaintiffs to sue as the legal costs would be much higher the the amount at stake. So a class action is a good thing for those plaintiffs with small claims.

However, keep in mind that if you fail to opt out of the class action (provided you had notice and opportunity), any verdict or settlement will be binding on you and bar you from bringing a later suit of your own.

Therefore, my advice is that if you have a lot of money tied up in neteller and a class action goes forward, meet with an attorney promptly to discuss your options.

[justscott]

[ QUOTE ]
I saw Erin Brokovich. I can lose my job in the mines for this, and how will I be able to pay my children's medical bills from the radiation from the computers they were using while accessing Neteller over extended periods?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude i read three John Grisham novels, "Bring it".

[leehrat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again if you dont mind, which court will you be filing in?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm also an attorney. FYI, to those of you who don't think US courts have jurisdiction over Neteller -- you're dead wrong. OP could file in pretty much any Federal court. Neteller's substantial and continuous contact with US customers establishes jurisdiction.

For Christ's sake, the first thing they teach you in Civil Procedure is the case where an Argentenian helicopter company was successfully sued in Federal court, even though it had no US based offices and did no business with US suppliers. Minimum contacts doctrine ftw.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you're referring to Helicopteros Nacionales (466 U.S 408) you'd be wrong. SCOTUS held in that case that the Colombian company's mere purchases of helicopters in TX did not satisfy the minimum contacts test and consequently fell outside the reach of their long-arm statute

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I agree that PPG is wrong about the outcome of the case with respect to the particular parties, and it's not true that jurisdiction was established over the helicopter company, I would have to say that the doctrine established in the same case WOULD help anyone trying to sue Neteller. Neteller's service of US customers does satisfy the minimum contacts test of Helicopteros. PPG was right insofar as the case sets up the minimum contacts standard in such a way as it's plainly satisfied by the facts of Neteller's situation.

Don't you agree? I'm guessing your post was merely a correction of the facts of the case, rather than a dismissal of the claim that Neteller can be reached by U.S. courts, because it seems plainly the case that that's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh no i absolutely believe that the US can gain jurisdiction here. we certainly have "continuous and systematic contact" and, therefore, probably have general jurisdiction over Neteller. but as a poster above said, difficulties arise when we try to enforce the judgment in foreign jurisdictions.