We have reported in the past about the Toyota Corporation and the number of lawsuits they face with regard to manufacturing defects. Specifically, the Toyota Prius has been blamed in a number of personal injuries and fatalities stemming from its tendency to involuntarily accelerate. Class action suits and multi-district litigation suits are brewing across the nation and the auto maker is facing potential liability in the millions, if not billions, of dollars.

However, Toyota is now facing a $10 million lawsuit from a woman claiming she was wrongfully harmed by a marketing campaign designed to prank and mislead people. The suit stems from a 2009 marketing campaign known as “Your Other You.” It featured a website where people could sign up to “punk” their friends using various deceptive tactics all in an attempt to elicit a frightened response from the unknowing party. In this lawsuit, plaintiff Amber Duick is suing Toyota over the ad campaign claiming she was targeted with frightening, stalker emails from a stranger claiming to be evading the law and looking for a place to “crash” with his pet pit bull, Trigger.

The plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed after the district court held that she knowingly agreed to the scheme. According to court documents, the website allowed one person to target another for a prank. The targeted party would receive an email asking if she would like to participate in an “interactive experience.” Upon clicking on the URL provided in the email, the targeted party would be sent to a site to complete a “Personality Evaluation.” The person was then required to scroll through text and “Agree” to the terms and conditions of the “Personality Evaluation.” It was at this point the trial court held that the plaintiff agreed to the prank and could not recover.

The California Court of Appeals held otherwise. Shortly after the plaintiff “agreed” to the terms, she was sent a series of emails from an individual claiming to be hiding from police and in need of a place to stay. Another email purportedly came from a motel the man stayed in claiming the plaintiff owed the motel for damages caused by the man’s unruly behavior. After many other follow-up emails and text messages- messages detailing her home address and other personal information- the plaintiff was then contacted by Toyota and told the entire scenario was a joke and the man did not actually exist. Ms. Duick did not find the prank funny and immediately sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair and deceptive trade practices, negligent misrepresentation and a series of other claims. The Court of Appeals reviewed the documents and held that Toyota enticed the woman to participate in the pranks under false pretenses and the Terms and Conditions she allegedly “agreed” to were void as a matter of law.

Procedurally speaking, the string of lawsuits against Toyota following its massive spontaneous acceleration recall remain at a standstill as parties continue to battle over discovery issues- issues which will be sorted through by federal judge James Selna of Santa Ana. The main crux of the conflict regards the shear number of witnesses and vehicle owners Toyota plans to depose- a number close to 250.

The lawsuit stems from a number of cases in which car owners’ vehicles were recalled due to concerns with sudden and spontaneous acceleration. Plaintiffs claim the value of their vehicles was significantly depreciated following the recall and are seeking damages from the auto-giant. As of now, plaintiffs are filing claims separately but many lawyers are seeking class action status from Judge Ana in the near future.

Giving rise to the conflict is the fact that Toyota has expressed its intention to depose 250 economic loss victims in conjunction with the lawsuit. Plaintiffs would like that number significantly reduced to just 50 plaintiffs. Toyota is also seeking permission to stretch depositions until 2013. Attorneys for both sides presented their arguments in court filings this week to give Judge Ana an opportunity to review the assertions of both opponents.

One plaintiff’s attorney called Toyota’s discovery filings a “blunderbuss” and referred to the amount of discovery as “nothing short of stunning.” Plaintiffs’ attorneys are also concerned with judicial efficiency and economy and worry that 250 depositions will take an indeterminate amount of time to complete.

Toyota has counted these arguments with due process claims and cited the recent Wal-Mart sex discrimination case. That case emphasizes the due process rights of massive corporate defendants embroiled in class action suits. Toyota points to its right to conduct a fair case and produce a full record of events with regard to the case.

Value depreciation claims are not the only suits pending against Toyota with regard to acceleration problems. A number of personal injury and wrongful death claims have been filed on behalf of drivers, passengers and victims injured or killed when their vehicle suddenly sped up while on the roadway.

Tuesday’s upcoming hearing comes on the heels of a recent decision by Judge Ana disallowing non-California residents from seeking compensation in California courts. Many out-of-state plaintiffs were choosing to file in California based on its favorable consumer protection laws. Judge Selna struck down these suits on the notion that it is unlawful for plaintiffs to “forum shop” and file claims in a certain jurisdiction based solely on the likelihood of success.

The Toyota Motor Corporation has been in the spotlight now for almost a year due to numerous recalls, investigations and complaints about Toyota manufactured vehicles. Toyota announced its first major recall late last year after numerous complaints were filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) complaining of sudden acceleration problems in Toyota manufactured vehicles. Sadly, it was not until a family of four was killed when the Lexus SUV they were driving in accelerated out of control that the recall was finally issued and national attention was drawn to the issue. That first recall covered over 4 million vehicles and was followed by two more recalls in January and February bringing the recall total to over 8 million vehicles. The United States Department of Transpiration, congressional leaders and watchdog groups launched investigations shortly after the recalls were announced to answer questions regarding when the automaker giant was aware of the defects and what they did with that knowledge.

Under United States law, a manufacturer has a legal duty to make all reasonable efforts to locate any defects in a product they manufacture and once they are aware of a defect they must notify consumers as well as the appropriate regulatory agency. The U.S. Department of Transportation recently levied a $16.4 million fine against Toyota for failing to notify regulators in a timely manner as required under the laws of the United States. The fine is the largest fine ever ordered by the USDOT. Toyota also announced that it will not challenge the fine but fell short of admitting any wrongdoing.

The recalls and defective automobiles have left millions of consumers with financial and physical damages. The number of accidents and deaths attributable to Toyota manufactured defective automobiles continues to rise. Millions more have been affected by the loss of value of their Toyota manufactured vehicles. As a result, many people are asking what kind of compensation they can expect for the losses they have suffered. The value of your Toyota recall claim depends on what type of claim you have, according to California Toyota recall attorney Emery Ledger of Ledger & Associates.

At the moment, there are two basic types of claims that have been filed against Toyota. The first type of claim is for injuries or wrongful death stemming from a collision caused by a defective Toyota manufactured vehicle while the second is for economic losses. In personal injury cases, the laws of negligence apply. Assuming that the elements required to prove negligence have been met, then you can expect to receive compensation for economic and possibly non-economic damages. Examples of economic damages include: medical bills, lost wages and damages to your vehicle. Non-economic damages are what people typically refer to as “pain and suffering”. The value of your claim will depend on a number of factors including: type and severity of injuries you received; your age and earning capacity at the time of the collision; the amount of fault attributed to Toyota; whether you file in state or federal court; and various other factors specific to your case.

The best way to determine the value of your personal injury case against Toyota is to consult with an experienced California Toyota recall attorney. Attorney Emery Ledger of Ledger & Associates will be happy to provide you with a free and confidential detailed evaluation of your Toyota personal injury case at your convenience. Feel free to contact his office at 1-800-300-0001 or visit him online at www.ledgerlaw.com

If you are one of the thousands of people that have been affected by the numerous Toyota recalls over the past year, you may be wondering how the latest decision made by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) will affect your case or lawsuit. First, the JPML is a panel of federal judges they are charged with looking into federal cases wherein a number of Plaintiffs have filed suit for the same or very similar reasons and determining whether judicial economy would be better served if the cases were moved to a single court for the pre-trial discovery phase. The panel also then selects the location for the centralization of the cases if the decision is made to centralize. Centralization is not the same as filing a class action lawsuit. When cases are centralized at the federal level, they are only moved to a single court for the pre-trial or discovery phase of the legal process.

In the case of the many lawsuits that have been filed against Toyota – and those that are expected to be filed – the decision was made to centralize them due to the fact that the cases will all rely on much of the same evidence and will require testimony from many of the same individuals. The idea is that by centralizing the cases attorneys for both sides do not have to duplicate efforts therefore raising the costs of the lawsuits as well as taking considerably longer to conclude the cases. Interestingly, the decision was made to include both personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits in the centralization order along with the economic loss lawsuits.

So what does this decision mean to you is you are considering filing a lawsuit against Toyota? In practical terms, it means that all the pre-trial filings and discovery will be conducted in California. Regardless of where you live or where you injuries took place, the case will be moved to California for the time being. This also means that a single judge – Judge Selna – will be responsible for making all the decision regarding pre-trial discovery issues in all the Toyota cases. Pre-trial discovery issued can be crucial decisions in any legal case. Issues regarding who can be deposed, what evidence is admissible and what experts can be used are generally determined at this stage in the process. If your case is not resolved during the discovery stage, then it will be returned back to the originally court for trial; however the decisions that were made at the pre-trial stage may have already affected the outcome of the case.

If you have been injured, either physically or financially, by a Toyota manufactured vehicle and would like to speak to California Toyota recall attorney about how the decision to centralize the cases may effect your specific situation, then please feel free to contact Emery Ledger at his law firm of Ledger & Associates. Attorney Ledger can be reached at 1-800-300-0001 or online at www.ledgerlaw.com.