In the last year, Toyota Motor Corporation has issued voluntary recalls on over 8 million of its vehicles worldwide and the number continues to climb. The first recall covering over four million vehicles was announced late last year and came after numerous complaints were filed with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration regarding unintended acceleration problems. The complaints – some dating back years – all complained of Toyota manufactured vehicles that accelerated without warning or that could not be stopped by pushing the brake. The final push for Toyota to issue the recall came when a family of four was killed in a Toyota manufactured Lexus SUV that accelerated out of control causing the death of all four occupants. That recall became known as the “accelerator entrapment” recall. The next recall was announced in January and covered 2.3 million vehicles for similar issues. This recall, however, was blamed on a defect in the pedal itself and became known as the “sticky pedal” recall. Another recall was issued in February and two more have been announced just this month.

The fine that was ordered this month by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) comes after an investigation initiated by the USDOT as to whether Toyota addressed the potential defects in its vehicles in a timely manner as required under United States law. The conclusion of the investigation was that Toyota did NOT notify regulators and consumers as quickly as required under the law. U.S. laws regarding defective products have numerous requirements for what a company must do in the event of a defective product. In essence, the company must make all efforts to investigate a potential defect, must report the defect to U.S. regulators, must notify consumers and must repair, replace of refund the product.

The fine that was issued by the USDOT this month is based on their conclusion that for the defects covered in the January recall of 2.3 million vehicles Toyota did not notify the proper authorities or consumers in a timely manner. The fine amount of $16.4 million was the limit allowed under current United States laws. In other words, authorities were not permitted, under the law, to order a fine greater than the $16.4 million. Had a cap not been in place for the maximum fine that a single manufacturer can face, the total fine could have reached over $13 billion. Absent the cap, the law allows a fine of $6000 per vehicle covered in the recall. In reality, $16.4 million dollars for a corporation that has annual sales in the billions isn’t as stiff of a fine as it initially sounds. While authorities were not able to fine Toyota more than the $16.4 million for the January recall, they could issue more fines based on other recalls. Reports are that they are looking into the first recall to decide whether Toyota violated any notice laws and requirements during that recall. If so, another fine could be forthcoming for the giant automaker.

If you have been personally affected by the Toyota recalls and would like further information regarding your legal options, please feel free to call California Toyota recall attorney Emery Ledger at his law firm Ledger & Associates. He can be reached at 1-800-300-0001 or you may contact him through his website at 1-800-300-0001.

With all of the publicity surrounding the Toyota recalls over the last year and subsequent lawsuits, California Toyota recall attorney Emery Ledger has been bombarded with questions involving the legal options that people that have been affected by the recalls have. There are a number of legal issues that surround the Toyota recalls, but one of the most basic issues – and one that affects the most people – is whether you have a claim against Toyota and is so what type of claim do you have?

The Toyota recalls have spawned two basic types of lawsuits at this point. The first types have generally been filed as class action lawsuits and are based on economic losses. The second types have been filed as individual lawsuits for personal injury or wrongful death. An economic loss case can be based on a number of claims, however in this case they are mainly centered around a loss of value theory. In general, a loss of value claim asserts that the product that you purchase has lost its value, or its value has been diminished, through the fault of the manufacturer. In the case of Toyota manufactured vehicles, the theory is that the value of the vehicle has been diminished as a result of the defects themselves and the bad publicity that has surrounded Toyota over the last year. For instance, imagine that you purchases a vehicle last year for $30,000 and reasonably expected (based on past performance) that the vehicle would retain 90% of its value from last year until this year making the expected current value of the vehicle $27,000. Now, however as a result of the recalls and the loss of confidence that consumers have in Toyota your vehicle is only worth $20,000, then you may have a loss of value claim. As with all lawsuits, this is just an example and you should consult with a California Toyota recall attorney for specific advice about your situation.

The second type of case is a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit. These are typically individual lawsuits that have been filed on behalf of someone that has been injured in a car accident or by the families of someone that was killed as a result of a car accident involving a Toyota manufactured vehicle. These lawsuits may potentially recover for actual damages such as lost time from work, medical bills and damage to a vehicle as well as pain and suffering. In the case of a wrongful death lawsuit, a claimant may be entitled to additional compensation based on loss of future earnings and other factors.

As you can see, the legal options available to consumers that have been injured – either economically or physically – by the Toyota recalls are numerous. The best way to know for sure what your own personal legal options may be is to consult with an experienced California Toyota recall attorney. If you would like a free and confidential evaluation of your specific situation, please call the law firm of Ledger & Associates at 1-800-300-0001 or visit them online at www.ledgerlaw.com.

With numerous lawsuits being filed against Toyota Motor Corporation as a result of the series of recalled announced over the last year, many people may be wondering how the decision is made whether to file a case in State or Federal Court. The rules differ depending on whether you are filing an individual lawsuit or a class action lawsuit. A class action lawsuit is essentially a group of people that have joined together to file suit against a Defendant because they all suffered similar injuries or damages. One of the most common types of class action lawsuits are product liability lawsuits. In the case of Toyota, a number of class action lawsuits have been filed claiming economic losses – all of which have recently been centralized in the U.S. Federal District Court in Torrence, California. Why, however are the cases being heard in Federal Court instead of State Courts?

One of the founding principals of the American legal system is that Plaintiffs (the person that has suffered the injury) can choose the forum for the lawsuit. This was important to the founding fathers to prevent abuses of the legal system by wealthy Defendants simply choosing a favorable court for any lawsuit filed against them thereby all but assuring their victory. The concept of Plaintiff’s choice still exists today, however with a number of exceptions. A class action lawsuit can, in theory, still be filed in State Court. The Defendant then has the option to file a motion to remove the case to federal court. Certain requirements must be met before the Federal Court can grant the motion for removal.

First, with rare exceptions, the case may be removed to Federal Court ONLY if the case could have been filed in Federal Court at the time the request to remove the case was made. This means that the case must meet either the federal question prong or the diversity prong of the federal case test. Cases involving federal questions are generally easily removed as long as all Defendants agree to the removal. Considering that Federal Courts have historically been more favorable to Defendants, this is usually an easy process. Cases involving the diversity prong, however, are not as easy to remove to Federal Court. Under the diversity prong, the Plaintiff and Defendant must be from different states AND the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. When there are multiple Defendants, or when an argument can be made that the Defendant is a resident of the same state as the Plaintiff (as in the case of a corporation with multiple offices), then removal is more difficult. Plaintiffs are usually successful at objections to removal in these cases. Having said all of that, the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) of 2005 made removal to Federal Court a little easier for Defendants. The CAFA basically allows class action cases to be removed to Federal Court if ANY of the Plaintiffs are from a different state than ANY of the Defendants AND the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The CAFA was written for cases exactly like the Toyota recall class action cases.

While the CAFA doesn’t make it impossible to object to removal of a case like the Toyota recall class action lawsuits, but it makes it likely that the case will be removed if the Defendant moves for removal even if you do make a timely objection.

If you would like additional information or a free detailed analysis of a Toyota recall case that you may have, please feel free to contact California Toyota recall attorney Emery Ledger online at www.ledgerlaw.com or at his toll-free number – 1-800-300-0001.

In the wake of the recent Toyota recalls covering over 8 million vehicles and counting as well as numerous fatalities and injury accidents, litigation has been filed in various states against the giant automaker and more is expected in the near future. In cases like these, where the Defendant is a corporation, the Plaintiff often has a choice as to whether they want to file the case in State or Federal court. In order to file a lawsuit such as this in federal court, the case must either address a violation of federal law OR be considered a diversity case. A diversity case is one in which the parties are located in different states AND the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The requirement that the parties be located in different states can get complicated in the case of a corporation, but where the corporation is registered, where their main office is located and where they have done business can all be considered when deciding where they are located for purposes of the diversity test. Not surprisingly, a number of lawsuits have been filed against Toyota in federal court and more are anticipated. With the number of lawsuits expected to climb, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has stepped in and ordered that the cases be centralized in California. Why was this done? Who is the JPML and what effect will this decision have on the litigation?

First, the JPML was created by an act of Congress back in 1968 and has two main functions. First, the Panel looks at cases filed in U.S. Federal Courts to determine if they involve a common question of fact that would serve judicial economy by bringing all the cases into one court. Second, the Panel decides where the cases will be heard if they are centralized and who the Judge will be that hears them. This is NOT the same as joining the cases for the purposes of a class action. Under a centralization order from the JPML, the cases are only brought under the jurisdiction of a single court through the pre-trial discovery stage of the proceedings. If a case is not terminated at the end of the pre-trial discovery stage, then it is remanded back to its original court of jurisdiction. The idea behind the centralization order is to prevent duplication of discovery efforts and allow the parties to work together to conserve resources for the parties as well as the judiciary.

In the Toyota cases, the JMPL has ordered that the cases be centralized in California, due in large part to the fact that the majority of the cases filed to date have been filed in California. Additionally, Toyota’s U.S. Division’s headquarters are in Torrence, California which is where the JMPL has ordered that the pre-trial process take place. U.S District Judge James V. Selna has been appointed as the Judge that will oversee the pre-trial phase of the lawsuits.

While Judge Selna will not hear cases that ultimately go to trial (unless they were originally filed in his court), the decision to centralize these cases can have a huge effect on the outcomes for the Plaintiffs. As the Judge that oversees the pre-trial discovery process, Judge Selna will make important decisions about admissibility of evidence, testimony of witnesses and many other crucial issues. If the cases are not settled or dismissed by the time that discovery process is done, then they will be returned to their original court and another Judge will have chance to impact the outcome. For now, however, the future of many Toyota recall lawsuits rests in the hands of Judge Selna.

If you have additional questions, or have been personally injured by one of the Toyota recalled vehicles, please feel free to contact California Toyota recall attorney Emery Ledger of Ledger & Associates at 1-800-300-0001 or visit him online at www.ledgerlaw.com

With the list of recalled Toyota manufactured vehicles continuing to climb, the number of accidents and fatalities that may be attributed to those vehicles continues to climb as well. To date, there are close to 50 deaths and hundreds of injuries that may be caused by Toyota manufactured vehicles. As more vehicles are added to the list, and investigations continue by the United States government as well as other governments, we may find more deaths and injuries that were suffered as a result of Toyota manufactured vehicles. So what can you do if you have been in an accident and suffered injuries as a result of a vehicle that has been recalled?

Defective products, or parts, can be addressed under the laws of product liability. Sometimes, as in this case, they can also be the basis for a personal injury lawsuit, according to California personal injury attorney Emery Ledger. Personal injury lawsuits operate under the theory of negligence. In the State of California, the theory of comparative negligence is used to determine who is responsible for a car accident. Under comparative negligence, more than once person – or entity -can be at fault in an accident. Some states still use a theory of negligence known as contributory negligence wherein if you contributed at all to the accident you cannot recover anything in a lawsuit. Luckily for California residents, California does not adhere to that doctrine. As the law stands in California, if more than one person – or entity – played a part in causing the accident, then the negligence (a legal term for blame) is proportioned among the responsible parties. In the case of the defective Toyota vehicles, for instance, it could be found that the defective part in a vehicle was 75% responsible for a car accident but driver error was responsible for the other 25%. The most important thing to remember is that even if you played a part in causing the accident, if someone else is MORE responsible than you then you may still be entitled to compensation for your injuries. In the examples above, if you were responsible for the 25%, then you would still be able to recover for 75% of your damages or injuries. The bottom line is that if Toyota manufactured a defective vehicle, or part of a vehicle, and that defect caused, or contributed to an accident that caused injuries, then they can be held accountable for those injuries.

As the number of lawsuits filed against Toyota continues to climb, it may be some time before we see any of the cases settled or we see a jury award. In the meantime, if you have been injured in a car accident and you feel that a Toyota manufactured vehicle was wholly or partially to blame for your injuries, then seek the advice of an experienced California personal injury attorney. If you would like a free and confidential detailed evaluation of your Toyota recall case, please contact California Toyota recall attorney Emery Ledger at Ledger & Associates – 1-800-300-0001 or www.ledgerlaw.com.