Class Action Lawsuit Against Hollywood Tans

[Ezliving_Jim]

Tanning company sued in Middlesex Co.

Friday, June 23, 2006

MOUNT LAUREL

A Middlesex County woman has filed a lawsuit in state court against Hollywood Tanning Systems Inc., a leading franchisor of tanning parlors.

A Hollywood Tans customer, Hadis Nafar, claims the company failed to warn its clients of health risks that may be associated with indoor tanning.

The suit was filed June 21 in New Jersey Superior Court in Middlesex County.

Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz filed the suit on Nafar's behalf and plans to seek class-action status.

The lawsuit seeks trebled compensatory damages, including a refund of the fees paid for Hollywood Tans' services, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and the costs of the suit.

Hollywood Tans, based here, operates more than 200 facilities in 26 states.

No representative of Hollywood Tanning Systems Inc. was available for comment.

Source

[solarmeter®]

failed to warn its clients of health risks that may be associated with indoor tanning.

What the hell do they think the label on the bed does... sanctioned by the one and only FDA. The jerk can't read? Oh - I get it: "A Hollywood Tans customer, Hadis Nafar...." The FDA label should have been in Arabic!

This is why TORT reform is needed... badly. The shyster lawyers are bloodthirsty. This could never happen in Canada or Europe... or Japan or China.

Next up: The municipal pool lifeguard FAILED to warn all the kids of the risks associated with mother nature's very own sun.

My butcher at the meat market failed to warn me that mad cow disease is a possibility. Certainly I must have it by now. I need Denny Crain from Boston Legal. Or maybe Geoffrey Fieger.
.

[Soakinuptherays]

I hope Hollywood tans counter sues for their legal expences. The warning on the beds is very clear!

[Jim Fisher]

My feeling is that the insurance company will get the suit thrown out of court.

[cfindley]

it always settles out of court, ours did and when i complained to my agent, he said that settling was the best for all, when i said they had no claim and there was nothing to settle, he told me that the lawyers have to eat to!
Evidently that community accepts this "game" as income and the insurance companies do to!
BTW i was dropped for coverage at the next billing cycle as "I" was high risk now even though they paid aganst my wishes!

[Sherin]

she never even claimed there was any actual damages? WTH?
She's been tanning there for a year? A seasoned tanner should be educated from going that much!

[Ezliving_Jim]

Suit: Hollywood Tans didn't warn client


By MADELAINE VITALE Staff Writer, (609) 272-7218
Updated: Saturday, June 24, 2006

Attorneys for a Middlesex County woman have filed a lawsuit claiming she was not given adequate warnings by Hollywood Tanning Systems Inc. about the dangers of indoor tanning.

The suit charges the owner with “fraudulent, deceptive and otherwise improper business practices” by marketing indoor tanning to unsuspecting customers as a safe, healthy alternative to sunbathing.

Hadis Nafar was a monthly member of Hollywood Tans from April 2005 to May 2006. Her attorneys, David J. Meiselman, Jeffrey I. Carton and Lindsay M. Held, allege in the complaint that Nafar did not receive information or warnings concerning cancer or other health risks associated with indoor tanning.

Nafar also was not asked to sign any consent waiver relating to potential dangers.

Hollywood Tans is the biggest indoor tanning chain in the country with 300 stores, including one in Northfield, Atlantic County.

According to the lawsuit, the owner “knew that its misrepresentations and omissions of material fact about the safety of indoor tanning and its tanning services and machines were false and misleading.”

Nafar's attorneys, from the Meiselman Denlea law firm in New York, charge Hollywood Tans emphasized “the dubious claims of ‘tanning benefits' while failing to warn customers regarding the substantial risks o f ultraviolet exposure resulting from (Hollywood Tans') indoor tanning services and the link to skin cancer and that there is no such thing as a safe tan.”

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, a refund of fees paid to Hollywood Tans and attorney costs in the lawsuit filed this week in Middlesex County Superior Court.

Source

[solarmeter®]

and that there is no such thing as a safe tan

That statement alone "proves" there is a conspiricy behind this effort. It is an AAD "soundbite" not a fact. Follow the money and see who's really behind the suit. Certainly the woman did NOT dream this up by herself!

The FDA labels clearly outline the risks associated.... NONE of which imply there is no such thing as a "safe" tan. Eyewear protects eyes (a known risk) and FDA exposure schedules protect against erythema (a potential risk for NMSC after many "over" exposure sunburns).

Next up: All public buildings must station a guard at each stairwell to warn that there is no such thing as a safe walk down the stairs. A "please watch your step" label shall have no value.... especially if in English.

Nafar also was not asked to sign any consent waiver relating to potential dangers

The guard will require that you sign a falling waiver before proceding down the stairs... even though same waiver will be thrown out in court when you slip on a puddle of pee (having failed to watch your step) and tumble down in a heap.
.

[Jim Fisher]

What Sherin Said.. There were no damages.. I hope the boys from HT counter sue these guys and and the plaintiff for this harassment

[Soakinuptherays]

My fear for that this will open the flood gates of lawyers looking for anyone in our industry with money to sue.

I am willing to bet that all the major chains and franchises will get a sued very soon.

[Brian Oshman]

a refund of fees paid to Hollywood Tans

What's next, we can sue anybody for a refund of services rendered. Brings a new meaning to tan free for a year. She is probably entitled since no results were obtained.

I am willing to bet that all the major chains and franchises will get a sued very soon.

Yeah, and when they have to pay off the class action law suit they'll pay everyone $18.88 a month.

This must make Mom and Pop very happy.

[Joey]

Brian 18.88 is so outdated it's 8.95 now no contract no commitment 38 lamp beds with facials.

[engfant]

what about THERE ARE NO SAFE RIDES IN A CAR.

THERE ARE NO SAFE WALKS ON A BUSY ROAD.

THERE ARE NO SAFE BOATING RIDES.

THERE ARE NO SAFE GLASSES OF WATER.

THERE ARE NO SAFE BAGS OF CHIPS

NO SAFE JUNK FOOD

THERE ARE NO SAFE SKY DIVING EXPERIENCES.

When can we start suing these people that provide these services?

Oh wait, those are governed by this thing called COMMON SENSE. I guess it only applies to products that are taxed to death.

[navigatin1]

Does anyone know if NJ is a regulated state?

I know here in MA we have to have these red warning signs posted in all rooms no farther then 3 feet from the bed. Also I have customers sign off on a waiver when they join up and then once a year from that point on.

I tripped over my own shoelaces one time becuase no one warned me this could happen. Think I'll call my lawer on monday and go after the shoe company for falling to put a warning lable on my sneakers!

[Tanning Queen]

HT is a target because they advertise the "benefits of tannings" all over the place. I always thought we weren't allowed to say that tanning was beneficial in any way, just cosmetic. They are also a target because they are out there in everything they can be. Movies, tv shows, etc. I cant stand them but they do a great job at getting their name out. But, I dont know if their equipment has the warnings on them or not since they make their own stuff. And why wouldnt they have a waiver? They use Helios and I would think they would have everyone sign something. Any salon that doesnt in todays world is stupid...

[engfant]

Oh my GOD! I'm IN ON THAT! My laces are ALWAYS coming undone. I tried the slip ons but they just slip off....which in itself is another lawsuit in the making.

I can't wait to rename NEW BALANCE to ENGFANT TOE HOUSES.

[solarmeter®]

The HT lawyers.... should they choose to defend this... need to begin a discovery process (under oath) to determine who exactly put this woman up to making these claims, and convene a grand jury too if necessary (can the defense do that?).

The chances that she would initiate this suit on her own are slim to none. If indeed she was prompted into doing so by ANY of the orgs who have a vested conflict of interest in the matter (AAD, Big Sunscreen Pharma, even those two congress ladies who are pushing the anti-tan house bill)... then the scam will be uncovered and thrown out by any judge who has no sunscare agenda of his own.

And... if that does turn out to be the case... HT should have a valid reason for recovery of all defense fees - from the plaintiff, her fancy lawyer firm, and the conflicted org(s) that inspired her. Follow the money.

Lousy ambulance chasers. TORT REFORM !!

There was evidently no tangible or even relevant harm caused to the plaintiff(s), and the benefits of moderate controlled UV exposure are no less "proven" by recent studies than are the risks of same "proven" by other recent (or old) studies. This is just (in my opinion) a totally manufactured extortion attempt.... and needs to be squashed in the bud.

[Brian Oshman]

New Jersey is not regulated at this time. (besides under 14 consent rule(just passed))

[Ezliving_Jim]

There is a Hadis Nafar at Rutgers, Division of Life Sciences, majoring in Biological Sciences. She is also on staff at Rutgers as a lab technician (Genetics. FAS - DLS - Cell and DNA Repository.) (Second Source)

HADIS NAFAR

(STAFF, STUDENT)

Title: LAB TECHNICIAN

Telephone Numbers

(Local Business)

Phone: (732) 445-7190

Email Address

Staff: hadisn@rci.rutgers.edu
Student: hadisn@eden.rutgers.edu

Postal Address

Staff: FAS - DLS - Cell and DNA Repository
604 Allison Road
Piscataway, NJ 08854

Campus Location

Staff: Room C125
Nelson Biology Laboratories
Busch Campus

Student Information

School: University College - New Brunswick
Academic Major(s): Biological Sciences
Year of Graduation: 06

Is this the Plaintiff? Maybe it's all a coincidence. (Maybe this is a student loan repayment strategy?)

It's interesting that the lawsuit is not against a local (broke-***) franchisee, but rather against the (bling-bling) franchiser that likely never had any direct contact with the plaintiff.

This is not just an attack on HT. This is a strategic dermoterrorist attack on the indoor tanning industry.

The lawyers also seem to like to make a name for themselves. How many news articles name not just the law firm, but three individual attorneys involved in a case. According to their website, they like going after rich targets. (Since when is the indoor tanning industry a rich target?)

[solarmeter®]

If true.... ? ... then it looks like a real setup. No person with those credentials, even if final-year undergraduate, would wander aimlessly into months of tanning without fully understanding the potential (and labeled) risks at hand. She even can read English.

Worse than planting an informant in a Miami terrorist bust !