D W asked:


Bush, McCain & other Republicans tried to warn the country. Democrats defended, blocked and suppresses with assistance from the media.

Obama (Co-counsel) Sued Citibank Under Community Reinvestment Act (ACORN) to Force it to Make Bad Loans

Case Name Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the … read more >
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

This case has received a good deal of press and blogger attention because one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers was Barack Obama, then just a couple of years out of law school.

Franklin Raines & Jim Johnson both have in the past or are currently advising Obama.

John McCain warning about Fannie Mae
May 2006

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/behol…

White House warns of GSE risks

Fannie, Freddie enjoy perception of backing, Mankiw says
By Matt Andrejczak, CBS.MarketWatch.com
EST Nov. 6, 2003
WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) – The notion that the U.S. government would bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac if they ran into financial trouble “creates a source of systemic risk for our financial system,” a top White House economic adviser warned Thursday.

Obama , Barack H.
City Chicago
State IL
Role(s) Attorney
Gender M
Case(s) FH-IL-0011 : Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank
VR-IL-0042 : ACORN v. Edgar
Nope no viruses. A puny attempt to block the truth! Are you related to Barney Frank, in bed with Maxine Waters?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html

Lawyers Attorneys FAQs

N N asked:


I am part of a class action settlement that has already gone to court and had a settlement agreed upon. Ive read through the terms at least 3 times, and for some reason today I found something that I had not seen before. And honestly has me concerned, so Im hoping someone else has been through their own and knows what this means, OR, a laywer who understands the terms, etc. will read and inform me. Heres what I read:
“Defendants payments of class counsels attorneys fees pursuant to this settlement agreement shall constitute full satisfaction of defendants and/or any of the released parties obligation to pay any amount to any person, attorney or law firm of attorneys fees, expenses or costs in the class action incurred on behalf of the named plaintiffs or the settlement class, and shall relieve released parties from any other claims or liability to any other attorney or law firm for any attorneys fees, expenses and/ or costs to which any of them may claim to be entitled on behalf of the named plaintiffs and/ or the settlement class.

Any class members not excluding himself or herself from the settlement will be deemed to have released any and all claims, demands, rights, liabilities, penalties, damages, liquidated damages and causes of action of every nature and description whatsoever, known or unknown, asserted or that might have been asserted whether in tort, contract, or for violation of any local, state, or federal constitution, statute, rule or regulation, including local, state and federal wage and hour laws, arising out of, relating to, or in connection with any of the settled claims.

If I am reading this right and I hope I am not, it sounds like the defendant only has to pay the attorney fees in this case, and that unless I filled out the release exclusion) form that I and any of the other plaintiffs would no longer be entitled to anything, and that once the defendant pays the above listed attorneys fees it relieves them of paying ANYTHING else to ANYONE else involved as a listed plaintiff in the case. Am I reading this wrong? Because I was told both in the settlement papers included letter to plaintiffs, and via phone conversation that all the plaintiffs had to do was fill out the Claim form and mail it in. Which is a totally different form that the also included exclusion form.

There is an entirely different page of the settlement that reviews what us as the plaintiffs (class counsel) are to receive. Basically its the other 2/3rds of the total settlement amount. And I thought this was how it was going to be until I read the page stating the attorney’s fees for the class counsel, and the nexp page which was the release part. So Im very confused.
Yes I understood the part that I couldnt participate in this suit, and sue again. I just wanted to understand better the part where it says “Defendants payments of class counsels attorneys fees pursuant to this settlement agreement shall constitute full satisfaction of defendants and/or any of the released parties obligation ” It sounds like once the defendant pays off the lawyer that they are no longer liable. Which honestly makes no sense at all. A judge has to go over this whole thing, why would he agree that the lawyer gets the money when it was us (the defendants) that were named as wrongly done.
Yes, I am satisfied with the plaintiffs part of the settlement, considering that I didnt expect anything at all. But once I receieved the settlement papers I got back the enthusiasm that I had when this whole thing started over 2 years ago
And wanted to make sure of what I was signing. I have sent the claim form in, then upon rereading it is when I got worried about the attorneys fees as the full obligation of the defendant.

Lawyers Attorneys FAQs

cdurham85 asked:


The following message was in my mailbox and i am wondering what in the world it means… please help..

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
KEYANN GLADDEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 3:08-cv-304 (REP)
NOTICE OF A PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
YOU ARE NOT BEING SUED. THIS IS NOT AN ATTORNEY’S SOLICITATION.
This notice is sent to you because the records of Navy Federal Credit Union show that it received a credit application from you between May 21, 2006 and January 30, 2009, and Navy Federal denied that application – either directly or through a car dealer. In its denial letter to you, Navy Federal stated as the only reason for the denial that unspecified information in your credit bureau report did not meet Navy Federal’s lending criteria. The Plaintiff in this case sued alleging that this violated a Federal law – the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Navy Federal denied that it violated the law and is prepared to defend the content of its denial letter. To avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation, the parties then reached a proposed settlement of all such claims, including yours. This notice tells you what rights and options you have in this matter.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, AS YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER IN A LAWSUIT AND YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT. THIS NOTICE ADVISES YOU OF IMPORTANT FACTS REGARDING A PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND OTHER MEMBERS, ON THE ONE HAND, AND NAVY FEDERAL ON THE OTHER HAND. THIS NOTICE EXPLAINS THE SETTLEMENT AND ADVISES YOU OF YOUR RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO THE SETTLEMENT. THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS NOTICE ARE NOT FINDINGS OF THE COURT.
1
WHAT THIS NOTICE PACKAGE CONTAINS
CAPITALIZED WORDS AND PHRASES IN THIS NOTICE PACKAGE INDICATE TERMS THAT ARE SPECIALLY DEFINED IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT WWW.NAVYFEDERAL.ORG/CASESETTLEMENT/.
I. BASIC INFORMATION PAGE
1. Summary 3
2. What is this Lawsuit about? 3
3. Why is this a class action? 3
4. Why did you receive this Notice Package? 3
5. What is the status of the Lawsuit? 3
6. Will you have to give up anything if the Stipulation is given Final Approval? 4
II. SETTLEMENT BENEFITS
7. What relief will be provided under the Stipulation? 4
8. Who will pay the costs of implementing and administering the Stipulation? 5
9. How and when will the relief offered under the Stipulation be provided? 5
III. LEGAL EFFECT OF THE SETTLEMENT
10. What am I giving up as part of the settlement? 5
11. Can the parties change the terms of the settlement? 6
12. Does the Stipulation have any current legal effect? 6
IV. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS
13. What are your options as to the Stipulation? 6
14. If the Stipulation is given Final Approval, what must you do to receive relief? 6
15. What if you want to object to the proposed Stipulation? 7
16. What if you want to exclude yourself from the settlement? 8
V. THE COURT’S FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING
17. Will there be a Court hearing about the Stipulation? 8
VI. COUNSEL REPRESENTING SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS
18. Who are the attorneys representing Settlement Class Members? 8
19. How will counsel for Settlement Class Members be paid? 8
20. Do you need to hire your own attorney in connection with the Stipulation? 9
VII. GETTING MORE INFORMATION
21. Where can you get additional information? 9
APPENDIX A —- Release 10
APPENDIX B —- Summary Of Your Legal Rights And Options In This Settlement 12
2
I. BASIC INFORMATION
1.
Summary
This is a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit that could affect your rights. Under this proposed settlement, neither you nor other class members will receive a cash payment.
2.
What is this Lawsuit about?
This Lawsuit concerns the content of the notice that Navy Federal provides to individuals who apply for credit with Navy Federal and are denied. Under the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), Navy Federal is required to provide a declined credit applicant a statement of the specific reasons for the denial. The Plaintiff in this lawsuit applied for credit with Navy Federal and Navy Federal denied her application. Navy Federal sent her an Adverse Action Notice that stated that the reason for the denial was the existence of unspecified information in her credit bureau report. Plaintiff contends that Navy Federal violated ECOA by failing to identify with sufficient specificity the reason for the denial.
Navy Federal denies the allegations made against it. Navy Federal also maintains that it has fully complied with all requirements of ECOA and provided Plaintiff with an Adverse Action Notice containing numerous avenues to obtain the specific reasons for the denial of her application, including a free copy of her credit bureau report, a toll-free number to contact Navy Federal to obtain a

Lawyers Attorneys FAQs

sealRborders asked:


Firms Who Hire Illegal Immigrants Sued
By PETER PRENGAMAN
Associated Press Writer

August 22, 2006, 9:11 PM EDT
LOS ANGELES — Frustrated by lax enforcement of immigration law, businesses are taking their fight against illegal immigration to court, accusing competitors of hiring illegal workers to achieve an unfair advantage.

Businesses and anti-illegal immigration groups said the legal action was an attempt to create an economic deterrent against hiring illegal employees.

“We see the legal profession bringing to this issue the kind of effect it’s had on consumer product safety,” said Mike Hethmon of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a Washington D.C.-based group backing the efforts.

In the first of a series of lawsuits, a temporary employment agency that supplies farm workers sued a grower and a two competing companies on Monday.

Similar cases claiming violations of federal anti-racketeering laws have yielded mixed results. The California lawsuit is believed to be the first based on a state’s unfair-competition laws, legal experts said.

Santa Monica-based Global Horizons claimed in the lawsuit that Munger Brothers, a grower, hired illegal immigrant workers from Ayala Agricultural Services and J&A Contractors. All the defendants are based in California’s farm-rich Central Valley.

The suit alleges that Munger Brothers had a contract with Global Horizons to provide more than 600 blueberry pickers this spring, but nixed the agreement so it could hire illegal immigrants.

“Competitors hiring illegal immigrants is hurting our business badly,” Global Horizons President Mordechai Orian said. “It’s to the point that doing business legally isn’t worth it.”

Ayala Agricultural Services manager Javier Rodriguez had not seen the suit but said the company does not hire undocumented immigrants.

“If somebody doesn’t have a green card or work documents, we don’t hire them,” he said.

Munger Brothers lawyer Theodore Hoppe said the contract with Global Horizons fell apart because the laborers they provided couldn’t pick blueberries at the rate the company had promised. He said Munger Brothers hired workers through temporary agencies, which had the responsibility to hire legal workers.

J&A Contractors did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

With an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, undocumented workers are a large part of the nation’s work force.

But immigration law enforcement at work sites is limited. In fiscal year 1999, authorities arrested 2,849 people at work sites compared with 1,145 arrests last year, according to the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

To prove competitors hire illegal immigrants, businesses could use public records involving prior violations, testimony from former employees who have worked alongside illegal immigrants, and recovered W-2 tax forms that show people working under fake names and Social Security numbers, said David Klehm, the lead lawyer for cases in Southern California.

Companies planning to file additional lawsuits include farms and factories that depend heavily on immigrant labor, Klehm said.

Legal experts said the cases could be difficult to win. Under the California statutes, plaintiffs must prove a competitor directly harmed their business.

“Unless you’ve got smoking gun evidence, it’s hard to tie economic loss of one business to another’s practices,” said Niels Frenzen, a law professor at the University of Southern California.

He believes it is the first time the unfair-competition law has been used to target illegal immigration.

The Global Horizons lawsuit came after a settlement was reached in a Washington state class action suit involving employees of Zirkle Fruit Co. who sued their employer for driving down wages by hiring undocumented workers.

Based on federal anti-racketeering laws, the case was settled for $1.3 million in January after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court decision to dismiss it.

Howard Foster, the lead plaintiffs’ lawyer in the Washington case, said he expects more such suits as business owners learn their competitors hired illegal immigrants.

“So many people talk openly about using false documents to assemble an illegal workforce,” Foster said. “And when you have IDs with upside down numbers and backward pictures, you know they are fake.”

Lawyers Attorneys FAQs

carlos c asked:


NOT GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOR AT THE PUMP;
ARIZ. SHORTCHANGED BY THE HEAT; ACTIVISTS PURSUE FAIRER FILL-UPS
Each time drivers fill their fuel tanks in Arizona’s simmering summers, they likely see $1 or more evaporate.

Because gasoline expands in the heat, that’s the estimated dollar amount of energy they purchase but they never receive.

Nobody serves hotter gas than stations in the Arizona desert, and after more than a year of discussion, debate over the issue is beginning to boil.

The state Department of Weights and Measures is taking fuel temperatures at gas stations and considering voluntary temperature compensation, while consumer advocates are pushing aggressively for changes.

When gas heats up, it takes up more space but doesn’t provide any more energy. That means there is less energy in a tank full of 105-degree gas than the same tank filled with 70-degree gas. However, stations charge by the volume of gas they sell, not how much energy it contains.

“Arizona is the epicenter of hot-fuel rip-offs,” said Judy Dugan, a founder of OilWatchdog.org, which is calling for gas stations to compensate for the temperature of gas they sell. “With the weather Phoenix is experiencing now, every time you fill the tank, you could be losing a dime a gallon. It’s an extra penalty for living in the desert imposed on you by the oil companies and oil refineries.”

Major oil companies and independent station operators argue that retrofitting pumps and compensating fuel sales for temperature won’t save consumers money and oppose moves to require such equipment or even allow it in the marketplace.

At least 38 lawsuits have been filed nationwide against gas stations and oil companies. Earlier this month, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., introduced legislation that would require new and upgraded pumps to use temperature-compensation equipment.

But things have heated up even more in Arizona:

- The Arizona Department of Weights and Measures is taking fuel temperatures at stations to get a 12-month average but already has found summer temperatures of about 104 degrees. Based on that data, Valley motorists pay about $1 more for a 15-gallon fill-up than they would for the same amount of energy if the gas were 60 degrees, the industry standard. That figure rises when prices hit the $3 mark they saw earlier this summer.

- Exxon Mobil Corp. stations owned by the company, not franchisees, in Arizona and California have begun putting warning stickers on pumps to let people know they don’t compensate for temperature, ostensibly a response to the lawsuits.

- A recent report for the U.S. House found Arizona has the highest hot-fuel premium nationwide, based on temperature data collected in 2003.

Local lawsuit:

Fuel experts have known for decades that gas expands when heated, and that trait can benefit or harm buyers and sellers when not calculated into transactions.

The current debate flaredin 2002 when the Missouri-based Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) representing truckers got involved.

OOIDA began investigating the mileage variances in diesel fuel when truckers suspected fraud.

The group found that temperature accounted for the different mileage truckers were experiencing, even though diesel doesn’t expand as much as gasoline when heated.

Their research and subsequent news coverage prompted dozens of class-action lawsuits on behalf of independent truck drivers and motorists, all of which are being consolidated in Kansas.

Among the 38 cases with more than 150 plaintiffs and defendants is James Anliker, owner of Jim’s Trucking Inc. in Tolleson. He and another Arizona motorist, Christopher Payne, filed their suit in May on behalf of everyone who has bought fuel warmer than 60 degrees in the state from the nine defendants, including Exxon Mobil, Shell, Flying J and Chevron.

“The defendants have resisted all efforts to change their deceptive marketing practices and retrofit service-station fuel pumps with temperature-correction devices because the petroleum industry profits from the sale of motor fuel to consumers and non-standard, non-temperature-adjusted gallons,” their complaint says.

It also criticizes the fact that stations don’t report the temperature of fuel being sold so consumers can calculate the purchase themselves.

The complaint also alleges the companies pay taxes on the amount of fuel they purchase at the industry standard of 60 degrees and could collect more taxes than they remit on the fuel when it is sold hotter and, therefore, “obtain a tax windfall at the expense of the consumers.”

Solution debated:

Hot-fuel critics see a double standard, with Canadian gas stations compensating for temperature to prevent being left short when
chilly weather reduces the volume of gas they sell.

Not to mention the temperature calculations oil companies often use when making shipments and major sales in the U.S.

For those large transactions, the industry standard is 60 degrees. That way, companies get an even trade when exchanging 5,000 temperature-compensated gallons of fuel in California, where it is 90 degrees, for 5,000 gallons of temperature-compensated of fuel in Minnesota, where it is 60 degrees.

Too costly, industry says:

But industry representatives say that’s not needed at pumps.

And spending $2,000 or more per pump to add temperature-compensating equipment will only hurt consumers, said Andrea Martincic, executive director of the Arizona Petroleum Marketers Association, representing the 93 percent of the state’s 2,000 stations who are independent.

“Consumers likely will see a price increase,” Martincic said.

She represented her views in Chicago this week during a National Conference on Weights and Measures meeting on the possible pitfalls of introducing temperature compensation in the U.S.

“The advocates for this are assuming the stations will sell fuel at the same price with the new equipment,” she said. “It’s a little misleading to say consumers are losing a dollar or whatever per sale. A gallon is a gallon.”

Temperature adjustment also could require more state inspectors, increasing fees on stations that could be passed on to consumers.

And if temperature adjustment is simply allowed, not required, it could create unfair competition among stations, she said.

“There is a risk in rural communities or at older stations, where potentially owners just say it’s not worth it,” she said. “If we don’t know it will help consumers, then why would you move forward with it?”

Industry opposition:

Oil companies such as Shell Oil and Exxon Mobil also have argued that the cost of adding the equipment to gas pumps would only hurt the business owners who run most of their franchises.

And temperature compensation won’t mean they get more gas to fit in their tanks or that stations will lower prices, they said in testimony before a special committee of the U.S. House last month.

“Shell believes that making automatic temperature adjustment permissive throughout the United States would not be a good idea,” said Hugh Cooley, Shell’s vice president and general manager for national wholesale and joint ventures.

“First, if in any given area some stations adopted the technology and others did not, consumers would be confused over how to compare prices.”

Exxon Mobil provided similar comments but would only reply via an informal e-mail when asked by The Republic about the new stickers on Arizona pumps. And then the company wouldn’t answer why just two states were singled out.

“(The stickers are) simply a reminder that the dispenser sells motor fuel by volume,” spokeswoman Prem Nair wrote. “This is how fuel has traditionally been sold at retail in the continental United States.”

Awareness limited:

Most drivers haven’t yet heard of the issue, even those who take fuel seriously.

“I didn’t know that,” 18-year-old Tim Senzee said while filling his pickup this month at a Phoenix QuikTrip as the mercury hit 109 degrees. “And I drive for a job, and have to pay for my own gas.”

Senzee can write off his delivery-service mileage on his taxes but still watches spiking prices.

“It definitely is a problem,” he said. “It can be pretty annoying.”

Other consumers were a bit cynical about hot-fuel regulation.

“I don’t think they’ll do it unless there is a law changed,” Kay Averkamp said as she pumped $27.86 worth of gas into her Honda Prius at a Phoenix am/pm station. “I don’t think they’ll do it out of the goodness of their hearts.”

But truckers say they see the impact, even though major trucking companies such as Phoenix-based Swift Transportation have stayed out of the fray.

“When you don’t get a real gallon of fuel, that’s when it hurts my wallet,” independent driver Sam Battaglia of Louisville, Ky., said recently after putting $170 worth of diesel into his International 9900 near Nashville.

“You notice when you fill up, then park overnight and the gauge reads less than full in the morning,” said Battaglia, a member of the independent-truckers group pushing for temperature compensation.

The state Department of Weights and Measures investigates about 1,000 complaints a month regarding gas pumps, but it hasn’t taken a stance on hot fuel, spokesman Steve Meissner said.

“The oil industry says it’s too expensive,” Meissner said. “So we could say, ‘OK, how about a voluntary system where the pump is labeled (as compensating for temperature),’ and if they have to charge an extra nickel a gallon or so, fine, they could let the market decide if it’s worth it.”
————–

Lawyers Attorneys FAQs

carlos c asked:


NOT GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOR AT THE PUMP;
ARIZ. SHORTCHANGED BY THE HEAT; ACTIVISTS PURSUE FAIRER FILL-UPS
Each time drivers fill their fuel tanks in Arizona’s simmering summers, they likely see $1 or more evaporate.

Because gasoline expands in the heat, that’s the estimated dollar amount of energy they purchase but they never receive.

Nobody serves hotter gas than stations in the Arizona desert, and after more than a year of discussion, debate over the issue is beginning to boil.

The state Department of Weights and Measures is taking fuel temperatures at gas stations and considering voluntary temperature compensation, while consumer advocates are pushing aggressively for changes.

When gas heats up, it takes up more space but doesn’t provide any more energy. That means there is less energy in a tank full of 105-degree gas than the same tank filled with 70-degree gas. However, stations charge by the volume of gas they sell, not how much energy it contains.

“Arizona is the epicenter of hot-fuel rip-offs,” said Judy Dugan, a founder of OilWatchdog.org, which is calling for gas stations to compensate for the temperature of gas they sell. “With the weather Phoenix is experiencing now, every time you fill the tank, you could be losing a dime a gallon. It’s an extra penalty for living in the desert imposed on you by the oil companies and oil refineries.”

Major oil companies and independent station operators argue that retrofitting pumps and compensating fuel sales for temperature won’t save consumers money and oppose moves to require such equipment or even allow it in the marketplace.

At least 38 lawsuits have been filed nationwide against gas stations and oil companies. Earlier this month, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., introduced legislation that would require new and upgraded pumps to use temperature-compensation equipment.

But things have heated up even more in Arizona:

- The Arizona Department of Weights and Measures is taking fuel temperatures at stations to get a 12-month average but already has found summer temperatures of about 104 degrees. Based on that data, Valley motorists pay about $1 more for a 15-gallon fill-up than they would for the same amount of energy if the gas were 60 degrees, the industry standard. That figure rises when prices hit the $3 mark they saw earlier this summer.

- Exxon Mobil Corp. stations owned by the company, not franchisees, in Arizona and California have begun putting warning stickers on pumps to let people know they don’t compensate for temperature, ostensibly a response to the lawsuits.

- A recent report for the U.S. House found Arizona has the highest hot-fuel premium nationwide, based on temperature data collected in 2003.

Local lawsuit:

Fuel experts have known for decades that gas expands when heated, and that trait can benefit or harm buyers and sellers when not calculated into transactions.

The current debate flaredin 2002 when the Missouri-based Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) representing truckers got involved.

OOIDA began investigating the mileage variances in diesel fuel when truckers suspected fraud.

The group found that temperature accounted for the different mileage truckers were experiencing, even though diesel doesn’t expand as much as gasoline when heated.

Their research and subsequent news coverage prompted dozens of class-action lawsuits on behalf of independent truck drivers and motorists, all of which are being consolidated in Kansas.

Among the 38 cases with more than 150 plaintiffs and defendants is James Anliker, owner of Jim’s Trucking Inc. in Tolleson. He and another Arizona motorist, Christopher Payne, filed their suit in May on behalf of everyone who has bought fuel warmer than 60 degrees in the state from the nine defendants, including Exxon Mobil, Shell, Flying J and Chevron.

“The defendants have resisted all efforts to change their deceptive marketing practices and retrofit service-station fuel pumps with temperature-correction devices because the petroleum industry profits from the sale of motor fuel to consumers and non-standard, non-temperature-adjusted gallons,” their complaint says.

It also criticizes the fact that stations don’t report the temperature of fuel being sold so consumers can calculate the purchase themselves.

The complaint also alleges the companies pay taxes on the amount of fuel they purchase at the industry standard of 60 degrees and could collect more taxes than they remit on the fuel when it is sold hotter and, therefore, “obtain a tax windfall at the expense of the consumers.”

Solution debated:

Hot-fuel critics see a double standard, with Canadian gas stations compensating for temperature to prevent being left short when
chilly weather reduces the volume of gas they sell.

Not to mention the temperature calculations oil companies often use when making shipments and major sales in the U.S.

For those large transactions, the industry standard is 60 degrees. That way, companies get an even trade when exchanging 5,000 temperature-compensated gallons of fuel in California, where it is 90 degrees, for 5,000 gallons of temperature-compensated of fuel in Minnesota, where it is 60 degrees.

Too costly, industry says:

But industry representatives say that’s not needed at pumps.

And spending $2,000 or more per pump to add temperature-compensating equipment will only hurt consumers, said Andrea Martincic, executive director of the Arizona Petroleum Marketers Association, representing the 93 percent of the state’s 2,000 stations who are independent.

“Consumers likely will see a price increase,” Martincic said.

She represented her views in Chicago this week during a National Conference on Weights and Measures meeting on the possible pitfalls of introducing temperature compensation in the U.S.

“The advocates for this are assuming the stations will sell fuel at the same price with the new equipment,” she said. “It’s a little misleading to say consumers are losing a dollar or whatever per sale. A gallon is a gallon.”

Temperature adjustment also could require more state inspectors, increasing fees on stations that could be passed on to consumers.

And if temperature adjustment is simply allowed, not required, it could create unfair competition among stations, she said.

“There is a risk in rural communities or at older stations, where potentially owners just say it’s not worth it,” she said. “If we don’t know it will help consumers, then why would you move forward with it?”

Industry opposition:

Oil companies such as Shell Oil and Exxon Mobil also have argued that the cost of adding the equipment to gas pumps would only hurt the business owners who run most of their franchises.

And temperature compensation won’t mean they get more gas to fit in their tanks or that stations will lower prices, they said in testimony before a special committee of the U.S. House last month.

“Shell believes that making automatic temperature adjustment permissive throughout the United States would not be a good idea,” said Hugh Cooley, Shell’s vice president and general manager for national wholesale and joint ventures.

“First, if in any given area some stations adopted the technology and others did not, consumers would be confused over how to compare prices.”

Exxon Mobil provided similar comments but would only reply via an informal e-mail when asked by The Republic about the new stickers on Arizona pumps. And then the company wouldn’t answer why just two states were singled out.

“(The stickers are) simply a reminder that the dispenser sells motor fuel by volume,” spokeswoman Prem Nair wrote. “This is how fuel has traditionally been sold at retail in the continental United States.”

Awareness limited:

Most drivers haven’t yet heard of the issue, even those who take fuel seriously.

“I didn’t know that,” 18-year-old Tim Senzee said while filling his pickup this month at a Phoenix QuikTrip as the mercury hit 109 degrees. “And I drive for a job, and have to pay for my own gas.”

Senzee can write off his delivery-service mileage on his taxes but still watches spiking prices.

“It definitely is a problem,” he said. “It can be pretty annoying.”

Other consumers were a bit cynical about hot-fuel regulation.

“I don’t think they’ll do it unless there is a law changed,” Kay Averkamp said as she pumped $27.86 worth of gas into her Honda Prius at a Phoenix am/pm station. “I don’t think they’ll do it out of the goodness of their hearts.”

But truckers say they see the impact, even though major trucking companies such as Phoenix-based Swift Transportation have stayed out of the fray.

“When you don’t get a real gallon of fuel, that’s when it hurts my wallet,” independent driver Sam Battaglia of Louisville, Ky., said recently after putting $170 worth of diesel into his International 9900 near Nashville.

“You notice when you fill up, then park overnight and the gauge reads less than full in the morning,” said Battaglia, a member of the independent-truckers group pushing for temperature compensation.

The state Department of Weights and Measures investigates about 1,000 complaints a month regarding gas pumps, but it hasn’t taken a stance on hot fuel, spokesman Steve Meissner said.

“The oil industry says it’s too expensive,” Meissner said. “So we could say, ‘OK, how about a voluntary system where the pump is labeled (as compensating for temperature),’ and if they have to charge an extra nickel a gallon or so, fine, they could let the market decide if it’s worth it.”
————–

Lawyers Attorneys FAQs

princess_29_71 asked:


Judge: Day laborers’ rights violated
Rules civil trial for damages can proceed against men who attacked Mexicans in 2000
BY ALFONSO A. CASTILLO
STAFF WRITER

February 12, 2005

A federal court judge has ruled in favor of two Mexican day laborers who say their civil rights were violated when they were brutally beaten by two white men in Shirley in 2000.

In the decision, handed down Thursday in Central Islip, U.S. District Judge Sandra Feuerstein ruled that a civil trial on the facts of the case is unwarranted because of the criminal convictions in 2002 of Christopher Slavin and Ryan Wagner in the attack. A civil trial on the amount of damages the Farmingville laborers may be entitled to is expected to begin later this month.

Feuerstein ruled that the defendants cannot dispute “that they conspired to, and did in fact, assault and batter plaintiffs with dangerous instruments, and that they had the requisite intent to commit the crimes charged.”

Slavin, 33, of Hicksville, and Wagner, 24, of Maspeth, are serving 25-year prison sentences for the attack, in which the two men, posing as contractors, lured Israel Perez, 24, and Magdaleno Estrada, 33, to an abandoned Shirley warehouse where they beat both with a post hole digger and stabbed Perez with a knife.

In the suit, filed in 2001, the laborers claimed their attackers deprived them of their right to the same security enjoyed by white people, conspired to create a climate of fear within the Latino communities, and deprived them of their rights to free speech, free assembly and free association under the First and 14th amendments.

Slavin’s Huntington attorney, Robert Del Col, could not be reached for comment. Wagner’s attorney, Thomas Liotti, of Garden City, did not return a call for comment.

Although the civil suit asks for $66 million, Fred Brewington, a Hempstead attorney representing the laborers, acknowledged Slavin and Wagner probably have “very little” assets to go after.

“This case is not about money. It’s about something much more tangible than dollars and cents,” Brewington said at a Mineola news conference Friday. “People have a right to come to this country and not be subjected to abuse or beatings based on their language, the color of their skin or their national origin.”

Estrada has returned to Mexico and is not expected to testify at the trial. Perez, who now lives in California, plans to return to Long Island to testify. Brewington said he spoke to Perez following the judge’s decision and said “he was very happy that there was some sense of justice through the system.”

Feurstein’s decision also formally dismissed a class action claim filed by the laborers on behalf of “all other Mexican/Chicano Day Laborers and/or Latino Day Laborers similarly situated.”

In addition to Slavin and Wagner, that claim was filed against several groups alleged to have helped create an environment of intolerance toward immigrants, including the Long Island-based Sachem Quality of Life. In 2002, a judge dismissed the groups from the suit.

Lawyers Attorneys FAQs

carlos c asked:


NOT GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOR AT THE PUMP;
ARIZ. SHORTCHANGED BY THE HEAT; ACTIVISTS PURSUE FAIRER FILL-UPS
Each time drivers fill their fuel tanks in Arizona’s simmering summers, they likely see $1 or more evaporate.

Because gasoline expands in the heat, that’s the estimated dollar amount of energy they purchase but they never receive.

Nobody serves hotter gas than stations in the Arizona desert, and after more than a year of discussion, debate over the issue is beginning to boil.

The state Department of Weights and Measures is taking fuel temperatures at gas stations and considering voluntary temperature compensation, while consumer advocates are pushing aggressively for changes.

When gas heats up, it takes up more space but doesn’t provide any more energy. That means there is less energy in a tank full of 105-degree gas than the same tank filled with 70-degree gas. However, stations charge by the volume of gas they sell, not how much energy it contains.

“Arizona is the epicenter of hot-fuel rip-offs,” said Judy Dugan, a founder of OilWatchdog.org, which is calling for gas stations to compensate for the temperature of gas they sell. “With the weather Phoenix is experiencing now, every time you fill the tank, you could be losing a dime a gallon. It’s an extra penalty for living in the desert imposed on you by the oil companies and oil refineries.”

Major oil companies and independent station operators argue that retrofitting pumps and compensating fuel sales for temperature won’t save consumers money and oppose moves to require such equipment or even allow it in the marketplace.

At least 38 lawsuits have been filed nationwide against gas stations and oil companies. Earlier this month, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., introduced legislation that would require new and upgraded pumps to use temperature-compensation equipment.

But things have heated up even more in Arizona:

- The Arizona Department of Weights and Measures is taking fuel temperatures at stations to get a 12-month average but already has found summer temperatures of about 104 degrees. Based on that data, Valley motorists pay about $1 more for a 15-gallon fill-up than they would for the same amount of energy if the gas were 60 degrees, the industry standard. That figure rises when prices hit the $3 mark they saw earlier this summer.

- Exxon Mobil Corp. stations owned by the company, not franchisees, in Arizona and California have begun putting warning stickers on pumps to let people know they don’t compensate for temperature, ostensibly a response to the lawsuits.

- A recent report for the U.S. House found Arizona has the highest hot-fuel premium nationwide, based on temperature data collected in 2003.

Local lawsuit:

Fuel experts have known for decades that gas expands when heated, and that trait can benefit or harm buyers and sellers when not calculated into transactions.

The current debate flaredin 2002 when the Missouri-based Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) representing truckers got involved.

OOIDA began investigating the mileage variances in diesel fuel when truckers suspected fraud.

The group found that temperature accounted for the different mileage truckers were experiencing, even though diesel doesn’t expand as much as gasoline when heated.

Their research and subsequent news coverage prompted dozens of class-action lawsuits on behalf of independent truck drivers and motorists, all of which are being consolidated in Kansas.

Among the 38 cases with more than 150 plaintiffs and defendants is James Anliker, owner of Jim’s Trucking Inc. in Tolleson. He and another Arizona motorist, Christopher Payne, filed their suit in May on behalf of everyone who has bought fuel warmer than 60 degrees in the state from the nine defendants, including Exxon Mobil, Shell, Flying J and Chevron.

“The defendants have resisted all efforts to change their deceptive marketing practices and retrofit service-station fuel pumps with temperature-correction devices because the petroleum industry profits from the sale of motor fuel to consumers and non-standard, non-temperature-adjusted gallons,” their complaint says.

It also criticizes the fact that stations don’t report the temperature of fuel being sold so consumers can calculate the purchase themselves.

The complaint also alleges the companies pay taxes on the amount of fuel they purchase at the industry standard of 60 degrees and could collect more taxes than they remit on the fuel when it is sold hotter and, therefore, “obtain a tax windfall at the expense of the consumers.”

Solution debated:

Hot-fuel critics see a double standard, with Canadian gas stations compensating for temperature to prevent being left short when
chilly weather reduces the volume of gas they sell.

Not to mention the temperature calculations oil companies often use when making shipments and major sales in the U.S.

For those large transactions, the industry standard is 60 degrees. That way, companies get an even trade when exchanging 5,000 temperature-compensated gallons of fuel in California, where it is 90 degrees, for 5,000 gallons of temperature-compensated of fuel in Minnesota, where it is 60 degrees.

Too costly, industry says:

But industry representatives say that’s not needed at pumps.

And spending $2,000 or more per pump to add temperature-compensating equipment will only hurt consumers, said Andrea Martincic, executive director of the Arizona Petroleum Marketers Association, representing the 93 percent of the state’s 2,000 stations who are independent.

“Consumers likely will see a price increase,” Martincic said.

She represented her views in Chicago this week during a National Conference on Weights and Measures meeting on the possible pitfalls of introducing temperature compensation in the U.S.

“The advocates for this are assuming the stations will sell fuel at the same price with the new equipment,” she said. “It’s a little misleading to say consumers are losing a dollar or whatever per sale. A gallon is a gallon.”

Temperature adjustment also could require more state inspectors, increasing fees on stations that could be passed on to consumers.

And if temperature adjustment is simply allowed, not required, it could create unfair competition among stations, she said.

“There is a risk in rural communities or at older stations, where potentially owners just say it’s not worth it,” she said. “If we don’t know it will help consumers, then why would you move forward with it?”

Industry opposition:

Oil companies such as Shell Oil and Exxon Mobil also have argued that the cost of adding the equipment to gas pumps would only hurt the business owners who run most of their franchises.

And temperature compensation won’t mean they get more gas to fit in their tanks or that stations will lower prices, they said in testimony before a special committee of the U.S. House last month.

“Shell believes that making automatic temperature adjustment permissive throughout the United States would not be a good idea,” said Hugh Cooley, Shell’s vice president and general manager for national wholesale and joint ventures.

“First, if in any given area some stations adopted the technology and others did not, consumers would be confused over how to compare prices.”

Exxon Mobil provided similar comments but would only reply via an informal e-mail when asked by The Republic about the new stickers on Arizona pumps. And then the company wouldn’t answer why just two states were singled out.

“(The stickers are) simply a reminder that the dispenser sells motor fuel by volume,” spokeswoman Prem Nair wrote. “This is how fuel has traditionally been sold at retail in the continental United States.”

Awareness limited:

Most drivers haven’t yet heard of the issue, even those who take fuel seriously.

“I didn’t know that,” 18-year-old Tim Senzee said while filling his pickup this month at a Phoenix QuikTrip as the mercury hit 109 degrees. “And I drive for a job, and have to pay for my own gas.”

Senzee can write off his delivery-service mileage on his taxes but still watches spiking prices.

“It definitely is a problem,” he said. “It can be pretty annoying.”

Other consumers were a bit cynical about hot-fuel regulation.

“I don’t think they’ll do it unless there is a law changed,” Kay Averkamp said as she pumped $27.86 worth of gas into her Honda Prius at a Phoenix am/pm station. “I don’t think they’ll do it out of the goodness of their hearts.”

But truckers say they see the impact, even though major trucking companies such as Phoenix-based Swift Transportation have stayed out of the fray.

“When you don’t get a real gallon of fuel, that’s when it hurts my wallet,” independent driver Sam Battaglia of Louisville, Ky., said recently after putting $170 worth of diesel into his International 9900 near Nashville.

“You notice when you fill up, then park overnight and the gauge reads less than full in the morning,” said Battaglia, a member of the independent-truckers group pushing for temperature compensation.

The state Department of Weights and Measures investigates about 1,000 complaints a month regarding gas pumps, but it hasn’t taken a stance on hot fuel, spokesman Steve Meissner said.

“The oil industry says it’s too expensive,” Meissner said. “So we could say, ‘OK, how about a voluntary system where the pump is labeled (as compensating for temperature),’ and if they have to charge an extra nickel a gallon or so, fine, they could let the market decide if it’s worth it.”

Lawyers Attorneys FAQs

injection_od asked:


the sentence structure makes you want to think it makes sense, but im at a loss for the meaning. enjoy!

A line dancer sells the ball bearing behind the tornado to the tomato. When a green girl scout starts reminiscing about lost glory, the parking lot beyond another ball bearing starts reminiscing about lost glory. Most people believe that the scythe tries to seduce a statesmanlike senator, but they need to remember how non-chalantly another class action suit ceases to exist. A cocker spaniel of a light bulb hibernates, and a bartender from a freight train leaves; however, a tornado graduates from a lover of the cocker spaniel. Some pickup truck inside the grand piano procrastinates, and a chess board for a buzzard hesitates; however, a mean-spirited jersey cow eagerly trades baseball cards with the briar patch. For example, the particle accelerator indicates that a bowling ball figures out the most difficult fruit cake. Most people believe that a turkey completely secretly admires a stoic blood clot, but they need to remember how knowingly the turn signal defined by an apartment building beams with joy. When a tabloid is gentle, the outer globule tries to seduce the inferiority complex. A grand piano around the ski lodge feels nagging remorse, but a satellite secretly admires an asteroid inside an ocean.
Most people believe that a grain of sand defined by the power drill laughs and drinks all night with a nearest freight train, but they need to remember how accurately another spartan reactor procrastinates. If a parking lot carelessly requires assistance from the feline bottle of beer, then a defendant around a minivan daydreams. A jersey cow about a corporation is resplendent. Any parking lot can secretly admire a photon inside the fundraiser, but it takes a real class action suit to derive perverse satisfaction from the annoying paper napkin. Any vacuum cleaner can non-chalantly make love to a chain saw around an eggplant, but it takes a real mastadon to teach a temporal roller coaster. A bowling ball inside the tape recorder hesitates, and a smelly apartment building feels nagging remorse; however, the feverishly cosmopolitan avocado pit brainwashes the fashionable bowling ball. A blithe spirit over the blithe spirit is hairy. Furthermore, the plaintiff living with a demon earns frequent flier miles, and a tripod of the defendant inexorably brainwashes the bowling ball over an oil filter. If the senator gives a pink slip to a Eurasian fundraiser, then a rattlesnake from a carpet tack hesitates.

An unstable nation A fire hydrant inside a grain of sand

Lawyers Attorneys FAQs

carlos c asked:


NOT GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOR AT THE PUMP;
ARIZ. SHORTCHANGED BY THE HEAT; ACTIVISTS PURSUE FAIRER FILL-UPS
Each time drivers fill their fuel tanks in Arizona’s simmering summers, they likely see $1 or more evaporate.

Because gasoline expands in the heat, that’s the estimated dollar amount of energy they purchase but they never receive.

Nobody serves hotter gas than stations in the Arizona desert, and after more than a year of discussion, debate over the issue is beginning to boil.

The state Department of Weights and Measures is taking fuel temperatures at gas stations and considering voluntary temperature compensation, while consumer advocates are pushing aggressively for changes.

When gas heats up, it takes up more space but doesn’t provide any more energy. That means there is less energy in a tank full of 105-degree gas than the same tank filled with 70-degree gas. However, stations charge by the volume of gas they sell, not how much energy it contains.

“Arizona is the epicenter of hot-fuel rip-offs,” said Judy Dugan, a founder of OilWatchdog.org, which is calling for gas stations to compensate for the temperature of gas they sell. “With the weather Phoenix is experiencing now, every time you fill the tank, you could be losing a dime a gallon. It’s an extra penalty for living in the desert imposed on you by the oil companies and oil refineries.”

Major oil companies and independent station operators argue that retrofitting pumps and compensating fuel sales for temperature won’t save consumers money and oppose moves to require such equipment or even allow it in the marketplace.

At least 38 lawsuits have been filed nationwide against gas stations and oil companies. Earlier this month, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., introduced legislation that would require new and upgraded pumps to use temperature-compensation equipment.

But things have heated up even more in Arizona:

- The Arizona Department of Weights and Measures is taking fuel temperatures at stations to get a 12-month average but already has found summer temperatures of about 104 degrees. Based on that data, Valley motorists pay about $1 more for a 15-gallon fill-up than they would for the same amount of energy if the gas were 60 degrees, the industry standard. That figure rises when prices hit the $3 mark they saw earlier this summer.

- Exxon Mobil Corp. stations owned by the company, not franchisees, in Arizona and California have begun putting warning stickers on pumps to let people know they don’t compensate for temperature, ostensibly a response to the lawsuits.

- A recent report for the U.S. House found Arizona has the highest hot-fuel premium nationwide, based on temperature data collected in 2003.

Local lawsuit:

Fuel experts have known for decades that gas expands when heated, and that trait can benefit or harm buyers and sellers when not calculated into transactions.

The current debate flaredin 2002 when the Missouri-based Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) representing truckers got involved.

OOIDA began investigating the mileage variances in diesel fuel when truckers suspected fraud.

The group found that temperature accounted for the different mileage truckers were experiencing, even though diesel doesn’t expand as much as gasoline when heated.

Their research and subsequent news coverage prompted dozens of class-action lawsuits on behalf of independent truck drivers and motorists, all of which are being consolidated in Kansas.

Among the 38 cases with more than 150 plaintiffs and defendants is James Anliker, owner of Jim’s Trucking Inc. in Tolleson. He and another Arizona motorist, Christopher Payne, filed their suit in May on behalf of everyone who has bought fuel warmer than 60 degrees in the state from the nine defendants, including Exxon Mobil, Shell, Flying J and Chevron.

“The defendants have resisted all efforts to change their deceptive marketing practices and retrofit service-station fuel pumps with temperature-correction devices because the petroleum industry profits from the sale of motor fuel to consumers and non-standard, non-temperature-adjusted gallons,” their complaint says.

It also criticizes the fact that stations don’t report the temperature of fuel being sold so consumers can calculate the purchase themselves.

The complaint also alleges the companies pay taxes on the amount of fuel they purchase at the industry standard of 60 degrees and could collect more taxes than they remit on the fuel when it is sold hotter and, therefore, “obtain a tax windfall at the expense of the consumers.”

Solution debated:

Hot-fuel critics see a double standard, with Canadian gas stations compensating for temperature to prevent being left short when
chilly weather reduces the volume of gas they sell.

Not to mention the temperature calculations oil companies often use when making shipments and major sales in the U.S.

For those large transactions, the industry standard is 60 degrees. That way, companies get an even trade when exchanging 5,000 temperature-compensated gallons of fuel in California, where it is 90 degrees, for 5,000 gallons of temperature-compensated of fuel in Minnesota, where it is 60 degrees.

Too costly, industry says:

But industry representatives say that’s not needed at pumps.

And spending $2,000 or more per pump to add temperature-compensating equipment will only hurt consumers, said Andrea Martincic, executive director of the Arizona Petroleum Marketers Association, representing the 93 percent of the state’s 2,000 stations who are independent.

“Consumers likely will see a price increase,” Martincic said.

She represented her views in Chicago this week during a National Conference on Weights and Measures meeting on the possible pitfalls of introducing temperature compensation in the U.S.

“The advocates for this are assuming the stations will sell fuel at the same price with the new equipment,” she said. “It’s a little misleading to say consumers are losing a dollar or whatever per sale. A gallon is a gallon.”

Temperature adjustment also could require more state inspectors, increasing fees on stations that could be passed on to consumers.

And if temperature adjustment is simply allowed, not required, it could create unfair competition among stations, she said.

“There is a risk in rural communities or at older stations, where potentially owners just say it’s not worth it,” she said. “If we don’t know it will help consumers, then why would you move forward with it?”

Industry opposition:

Oil companies such as Shell Oil and Exxon Mobil also have argued that the cost of adding the equipment to gas pumps would only hurt the business owners who run most of their franchises.

And temperature compensation won’t mean they get more gas to fit in their tanks or that stations will lower prices, they said in testimony before a special committee of the U.S. House last month.

“Shell believes that making automatic temperature adjustment permissive throughout the United States would not be a good idea,” said Hugh Cooley, Shell’s vice president and general manager for national wholesale and joint ventures.

“First, if in any given area some stations adopted the technology and others did not, consumers would be confused over how to compare prices.”

Exxon Mobil provided similar comments but would only reply via an informal e-mail when asked by The Republic about the new stickers on Arizona pumps. And then the company wouldn’t answer why just two states were singled out.

“(The stickers are) simply a reminder that the dispenser sells motor fuel by volume,” spokeswoman Prem Nair wrote. “This is how fuel has traditionally been sold at retail in the continental United States.”

Awareness limited:

Most drivers haven’t yet heard of the issue, even those who take fuel seriously.

“I didn’t know that,” 18-year-old Tim Senzee said while filling his pickup this month at a Phoenix QuikTrip as the mercury hit 109 degrees. “And I drive for a job, and have to pay for my own gas.”

Senzee can write off his delivery-service mileage on his taxes but still watches spiking prices.

“It definitely is a problem,” he said. “It can be pretty annoying.”

Other consumers were a bit cynical about hot-fuel regulation.

“I don’t think they’ll do it unless there is a law changed,” Kay Averkamp said as she pumped $27.86 worth of gas into her Honda Prius at a Phoenix am/pm station. “I don’t think they’ll do it out of the goodness of their hearts.”

But truckers say they see the impact, even though major trucking companies such as Phoenix-based Swift Transportation have stayed out of the fray.

“When you don’t get a real gallon of fuel, that’s when it hurts my wallet,” independent driver Sam Battaglia of Louisville, Ky., said recently after putting $170 worth of diesel into his International 9900 near Nashville.

“You notice when you fill up, then park overnight and the gauge reads less than full in the morning,” said Battaglia, a member of the independent-truckers group pushing for temperature compensation.

The state Department of Weights and Measures investigates about 1,000 complaints a month regarding gas pumps, but it hasn’t taken a stance on hot fuel, spokesman Steve Meissner said.

“The oil industry says it’s too expensive,” Meissner said. “So we could say, ‘OK, how about a voluntary system where the pump is labeled (as compensating for temperature),’ and if they have to charge an extra nickel a gallon or so, fine, they could let the market decide if it’s worth it.”

Lawyers Attorneys FAQs