web1_Wilkes-Barre-City-Police.jpg

Cash reported stolen from woman’s wallet

web1_hamfest02.jpg

Amateur radio operators celebrate ‘Hamfest’ in Plains Township

<p>WILKES-BARRE &#8212; A judge shot down the argument a bank wasn&#8217;t deceptive when it said fast-food workers saved money when paid with payroll cards that carried fees for withdrawals.</p><p>The ruling came last Wednesday in Luzerne County Court in the case against Clark Summit-based franchisees of area McDonald&#8217;s restaurants and the bank that issued the cards.</p><p>Judge Thomas Burke Jr. moved the civil suit along by overruling the preliminary objections filed by the defendants - Albert and Carol Mueller Limited Partnership, Albert and Carol Mueller, JPMorgan Chase &amp; Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.</p><p>The bank and the Muellers sought to have the case tossed, arguing Nigel King and the other plaintiffs who brought the suit failed to support a claim under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.</p><p>The case runs along the identical lines of a class-action suit pending in court filed by others issued payroll cards between 2010 and 2013. The recipients said the fees associated with the cards reduced their earnings.</p><p>In the case affected by the Burke ruling, the bank focused on the statement of plaintiffs&#8217; attorney Michael Cefalo, of West Pittston, that the bank said a payroll card &#8220;saves you money&#8221; even though fees were incurred. New York City attorney Noah Levine, representing the bank, argued in a pleading from last December that was not enough to show a violation under the unfair trade law.</p><p>Levine said the plaintiffs tried to show that the fees proved deception on the part of the bank. The fact there were fees didn&#8217;t make the bank&#8217;s statement false, he said.</p><p>&#8220;It is not unreasonable for anyone to interpret the statement that a payroll card &#8216;saves you money&#8217; to mean that no fees would ever be charged - particularly where the fee schedule appeared on the very same page,&#8221; he said.</p><p>Furthermore, the bank&#8217;s attorney said it informed the cardholders how to avoid fees, repaid the fees and tied any injury to the Muellers.</p><p>&#8220;Rather, plaintiffs contend that Mueller compelled them to accept their wages on payroll cards whose use might cause them to incur fees,&#8221; Levine said.</p><p>Separately, last November, the Muellers asked the court to dismiss this case because another class action suit brought on the same issue of the payroll cards is pending in county court.</p><p>If the court did not prohibit the &#8220;claim splitting&#8221; underway, &#8220;there would be nothing to stop plaintiffs&#8217; counsel from filing still more piecemeal class actions predicated on the Mueller defendants&#8217; use of the payroll debit card,&#8221; said attorney Matthew Hank, of Philadelphia.</p><p>He offered an alternate argument for dismissal, saying there has been nothing to show the Muellers engaged in fraudulent or deceptive conduct. Without supporting facts offered by the plaintiffs, they did not have a claim under the state unfair trade practices, Hank said.</p><style>
.neFileBlock {
	margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.neFileBlock p {
	margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.neFileBlock .neFile {
	border-bottom: 1px dotted #aaa;
	padding-bottom: 5px;
	padding-top: 10px;
}
.neFileBlock .neCaption {
	font-size: 85%;
}
</style>
<div class='neFileBlock'>
<div class="neFile"><img class="neImage" src="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/web1_law1.jpg">
<div class="neCaption"></div></div><div class="metaInfo"><photo0>https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/web1_law1.jpg</photo0><caption0></caption0><photoCredit0></photoCredit0></div></div>
<div class="metaInfo"><bylineMeta><p>By Jerry Lynott</p><p>jlynott@www.timesleader.com</p></bylineMeta></div><div class="metaInfo"><shirttailMeta><p>Reach Jerry Lynott at 570-991-6120 or on Twitter @TLJerryLynott.</p></shirttailMeta></div>

Judge overrules objections, moves McDonald’s payroll card lawsuit forward