The People's Lawyer Consumer News Alert
Center for Consumer Law
  Volume 142 Number 19

Subscribe to the Newsletter
Forward this news alert to your family and friends

Helpful Links

Texas Consumer Complaint Center

Your Rights as a Tenant

Credit Reports and Identity Theft

Your Guide to Small Claims Court

Common Q & A’s

Your Money

Scam Alert

Back Issues

Contact Us

http://www.peopleslawyer.net

1-713-743-2168

Unsubscribe

The People’s Lawyer’s Tip of the Day

Online games and websites for kids are everywhere these days – to the point where it’s commonplace to see toddlers playing with them, too. And while the internet often offers a positive way for children to explore and learn, privacy concerns are lurking.  Click here for more.


At least 156 people sick in E. coli outbreak from ground beef

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warns that an outbreak of E. coli, tied to tainted ground beef is spreading. At least 156 consumers have gotten sick since March 1. No one is believed to have died from infection, but the CDC says it knows of at least 20 people who have been hospitalized after eating the tainted meat. Of added concern is the fact that health authorities have yet to identify the source of the contamination. People have gotten sick after eating the beef both at home and at restaurants. Click here for more.


Your Money

A 702(j) account is frequently marketed as a retirement plan, but it's actually a life insurance policy. Sometimes referred to as a 702 or 7022 account, this type of plan is named after a section of the tax code. Before you sign up for a 702(j), keep in mind that unlike other types of retirement accounts, a 702(j) is a permanent life insurance policy like whole life or universal life. Click here for more.


For the Lawyers

FDCPA claim barred by res judicata. The Third Circuit affirmed the district courts finding that plaintiff’s claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because her federal complaint was identical to her state court FDCPA complaint for res judicata purposes. Specifically, the Court reasoned that (1) the acts complained of in both the state FDCPA action and the federal FDCPA action were the same; (2) in order to prove her claims in the federal action, Frazier would have to present the same evidence -- including testimony and documents -- that would have been necessary in the state action; and (3) new legal theories do not make the second case different from the first for res judicata purposes. Frazier v. Morristown Mem. Hosp., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10889, __ Fed. Appx. __, 2019 WL 1578770 Click here for more.

To stop receiving email news alerts from the Center for Consumer Law, please click here.