The absence of the name of the lead plaintiff on a demand letter has resulted in the dismissal of a proposed class action against Payless ShoeSource Inc. The ruling marks at least the second time since June a demand letter requirement tripped up a Massachusetts case handled by the same plaintiffs attorney.
U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr. of the District of Massachusetts booted Alberts v. Payless on Sept. 29 because the required letter sent by the plaintiffs’ counsel to Payless referred to the claimant only as “my client” or “plaintiff,” in violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, § 9(3), which the judge said requires the claimant to be identified. Read the court’s ruling here.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
