Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
O baby, what art thou?
Californians left out of gender-judging company’s settlement
Californians duped by a company promising to predict the gender of a fetus based upon a urine sample from the mother are out of luck when it comes to receiving restitution, a federal appeals court ruled Friday, November 7.
IntelliGender, LLC, makers of the IntelliGender Prediction Test, promised that their analysis would reveal the gender of an unborn child with 90 percent accuracy. But in 2010, Julie Gram led a nationwide class-action suit arguing that the firm's claims were in violation of California's unfair-competition and false-advertising laws.
According to a report from Courthouse News Service, the suit was settled in 2012, the same year San Diego city attorney Jan Goldsmith brought his own case against IntelliGender.
The firm had agreed to change its advertising practices and pay $10 to each customer who had received a false test result. Goldsmith sought $30 for each IntelliGender customer, regardless of whether their test results proved to be accurate. The State of California also opted out of the national settlement.
The settlement went through nationwide, however, and last week the Ninth District Court of Appeals ruled that IntelliGender complied with the Class Action Fairness Act when it notified the state of its proposed settlement, though California "chose not to participate in the settlement approval process."
"If the state wished to secure compensation for those class members, it had an opportunity to do so by intervening after receiving notice of the proposed settlement," wrote appellate judge Kim McLane Wardlaw. "The state chose not to use its authority, and the settlement was approved. Compensation is res judicata," legalese for declaring the matter already judged and settled.
Here's something you might be interested in.
O baby, what art thou?
Californians left out of gender-judging company’s settlement
O baby, what art thou?
Californians left out of gender-judging company’s settlement
Californians duped by a company promising to predict the gender of a fetus based upon a urine sample from the mother are out of luck when it comes to receiving restitution, a federal appeals court ruled Friday, November 7.
IntelliGender, LLC, makers of the IntelliGender Prediction Test, promised that their analysis would reveal the gender of an unborn child with 90 percent accuracy. But in 2010, Julie Gram led a nationwide class-action suit arguing that the firm's claims were in violation of California's unfair-competition and false-advertising laws.
According to a report from Courthouse News Service, the suit was settled in 2012, the same year San Diego city attorney Jan Goldsmith brought his own case against IntelliGender.
The firm had agreed to change its advertising practices and pay $10 to each customer who had received a false test result. Goldsmith sought $30 for each IntelliGender customer, regardless of whether their test results proved to be accurate. The State of California also opted out of the national settlement.
The settlement went through nationwide, however, and last week the Ninth District Court of Appeals ruled that IntelliGender complied with the Class Action Fairness Act when it notified the state of its proposed settlement, though California "chose not to participate in the settlement approval process."
"If the state wished to secure compensation for those class members, it had an opportunity to do so by intervening after receiving notice of the proposed settlement," wrote appellate judge Kim McLane Wardlaw. "The state chose not to use its authority, and the settlement was approved. Compensation is res judicata," legalese for declaring the matter already judged and settled.
Comments