Jst legal settlement text
Terms & Conditions
Licence to use website
Unless otherwise stated, we or our licensors own the intellectual property rights in the website and material on the website. Subject to the licence below, all these intellectual property rights are reserved.
You may view, download for caching purposes only, and publish pages from the website for your own personal use, subject to the restrictions set out below and elsewhere in these terms and conditions.
You must not:
- republish material from this website (including republication on another website)
- sell, rent or sub-license material from the website
- show any material from the website in public
- reproduce, duplicate, clone or otherwise exploit material on our website for a commercial purpose
- edit or otherwise modify any material on the website
- redistribute material from this website, except for content specifically and expressly made available for redistribution, such as our newsletter.
- Where content is specifically made available for redistribution, it may only be redistributed
Acceptable use
You must not use our website in any way that causes, or may cause, damage to the website or impairment of the availability or acces
We Defend You Against
JST Capital, Inc.
The Langel firm will defend consumers against New York state court collection lawsuits brought by JST Capital, Inc. In appropriate cases, we may investigate claims against JST Capital, Inc. for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and other applicable laws.
As of August 2013, JST Capital, Inc. has filed at least 97 cases in Queens County alone. JST Capital, Inc. is mainly represented by Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP.
JST Capital, Inc. purchases defaulted consumer debt to collect and sue on them.
JST Capital, Inc. Biographical Information
JST Capital, Inc. is a domestic business corporation incorporated in New York and is principally located at 401 Railroad Avenue, Westbury, New York, 11590. JST Capital, Inc. is licensed (#1320972) by the Department of Consumer Affairs to collect debts in the City of New York.
Case Law Index Food Labeling
January 1, 1995 – February 1, 2025
This index provides a comprehensive though not necessarily exhaustive compilation of reported and unreported federal and state court decisions involving Nourishment Labeling that were decided between the dates listed above. The cases are listed in backwards chronological order. The “Text” link goes to the freely free Google Scholar text of the opinion. These listings are for educational purposes only and are not a substitute for legal counsel.
SUPREME COURT
POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102 (2014) (allegedly deceptive labeling of its product as “pomegranate blueberry” when it contained only 0.3% pomegranate juice) Text
Hillside Dairy Inc. v. Lyons, 539 U.S. 59 (2003) (state labeling of fluid milk) Text
U.S. v. United Foods, Inc. 533 U.S. 405 (2001) (finding the Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act unconstitutional under the first amendment) Text
Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S. 476 (1995) (First Amendment challenge to FAAA banning disclosure of the alcohol content of beer) Text
Federal Sec. Adm’r v. Quaker Oats Co, 318 U.S. 218 (1943) (judicial review of a
$20 Million Settlement in Uber TCPA Class Action
Outcome: $20,000,000 settlement
Lathrop, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No.: 3:14-cv-05678-JST in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Vergara v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No.: 1:15-cv-06942 in the Joined States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Tycko & Zavareei LLP achieved a victory in class action lawsuits against Uber Technologies, Inc., asserting breaches of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for the rideshare company sending unwanted non-emergency message messages. TZ was appointed as class counsel. Three distinct classes were identified under the settlement:
- Settlement Class A: This class includes individuals in the U.S. who received non-emergency text messages via Twilio Inc.’s system for Uber’s Refer-a-Friend Program.
- Settlement Class B: This class comprises individuals in the U.S. who began the Uber driver application process but did not become “active” drivers and received unsolicited non-emergency text messages after requesting Uber to cease such communications.
- Settlement Class C: This class incorporates any U.S. persons or e
Introduction
This is not the most recent version of the supervisory methodology. You can find the latest version on the ECB’s banking supervision website.
The following sections provide a broad description of the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP) methodology applied to significant institutions under the direct supervision of the European Central Bank (ECB) (as set out in the SSM Regulation[1] and the SSM Framework Regulation[2]) in SREP 2022, thereby complementing the SREP aggregate results. The ECB continuously refines its supervisory methodologies to ensure they are up to date and reflect the latest supervisory developments as well as regulatory requirements. For example, the credit risk and market uncertainty methodologies for assessing banks’ exposure exposure will be revised for SREP 2023.
The ECB carries out the SREP assessment on the basis of a case-by-case approach using a standardised methodology, applying a principle of business and corporate governance neutrality.
The SREP approach:
- is consistent with the European Banking Authority (EBA) Guidelines on SREP (EBA/GL/2014/13)[3], relevant Capital Requirements Directive (CRD)[4] provisions as transpose