If You Purchased Gasoline from a Valero Station in the State of California and Paid with a Debit Card, a Class Action Lawsuit May Affect Your Rights
Boca Raton, FL and Los Angeles, August 30, 2018 /Newswire/ – The following statement is being jointly issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Hobson Bernardino + Davis LLP regarding the lawsuit Bautista v. Valero Marketing and Supply Company.
A pending lawsuit against Valero Marketing and Supply Company (“Valero”) alleges that Valero engaged in deceptive and unfair conduct in violation of California law by failing to ensure that customers are notified that debit card purchases of gasoline are charged a higher “credit” price, rather than an available lower “cash” price and, if so, whether the debit card purchasers are owed any money. The lawsuit is known as Bautista v. Valero Marketing and Supply Company, Case No. 15-cv-05557-RS. Valero denies these allegations. The Court has not decided whether Valero did anything wrong. There is no money or other benefit available now, nor is there any guarantee that there will be. However, your legal rights are affected whether you act or don’t act.
WHO IS IN THE CLASS
You need to decide whether you are affected by this lawsuit. The Court certified class is defined as “All persons who, between December 3, 2011 and the final disposition of this action, purchased gasoline using a debit card at a Valero-branded station in California that does not disclose how gasoline purchased with a debit card is priced, and were charged more money per gallon than the advertised ‘cash’ price.” A list of all affected Valero stations is available at http://gcginc.com/cases/bav/index.php. If you purchased gasoline with a debit card from one of the stations on this list, you may be part of the Class. You must check your financial records to determine whether you purchased gasoline using a debit card from one of the Valero stations on this list to determine whether you may be part of the Class.
YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS
You have legal rights and options that you may exercise before the Court holds a trial, which is scheduled to begin on January 28, 2019. The trial will decide whether the allegations being made against Valero, on your behalf, are correct. You have to decide whether to stay in the Class or ask to be excluded before the trial. Your legal rights are affected whether you act or don’t act – and you have a choice to make now:
Do Nothing
By doing nothing, you keep the possibility of getting money or benefits that may come from the lawsuit by staying in the class. If you stay in and the Plaintiff wins, you will be notified about how to seek money and other benefits from the lawsuit, but you will not be able to sue, or continue to sue, Valero – as part of any other lawsuit – about the same claims in this lawsuit. You will also be legally bound by all of the Orders and judgments the Court makes.
Ask To Be Excluded
If you ask to be excluded and money or benefits are later awarded, you will not share in those monies or benefits but you will keep any rights to sue Valero separately about the same claims in this lawsuit.
To ask to be excluded, you must send an “Exclusion Request” in the form of a letter sent by mail, stating that you want to be excluded. Be sure to include your name, address, and sign the letter. You must mail your Exclusion Request postmarked by November 28, 2018, to: Bautista v. Valero Marketing and Supply Company, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 9349, Dublin, OH 43017-4249. You may also get an Exclusion Request form at http://gcginc.com/cases/bav/index.php.
Should I Hire An Attorney
You do not need to hire your own attorney because Class Counsel is working on your behalf. Class Counsel can be contacted at (800) 449-4900. If you retain an individual attorney, you may need to pay for that attorney.
HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION
This is only a summary. For more information about the case, visit the website above. PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT FOR INFORMATION OR ADVICE.
###
CONTACT: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, (800) 449-4900
SOURCE: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Hobson Bernardino + Davis LLP