"Every weekly transportation news update goes out to every newspaper editor in the United States."
NOTICE: ALL COMMENTS AND OPINIONS IN OUR NEWS UPDATE FALL UNDER THE FREEDOM OF SPEACH ACT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!
TSCI'S LAWYER
Kyle J. Steadman
Foulston Siefkin LLP
Commerce Bank Center
1551 North Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
Wichita, Kansas 67206-4466
On June 08, 2011 a motion was filed by the plaintiff Charles L. Freeman III dba Renegade Transportation for JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT'S ADMISSIONS after the attorney Kyle J. Steadman of Foulston Siefkin LLP for the defendant Keith C. Whightsil and Transportation Safety Consultants, Inc admitted in a motion filed on May 12, 2011 that Keith C. Whightsil was paid by the plaintiff to change MC 550730 from Charles L. Freeman III dba Renegade Transportation to Renegade Transportation Inc and that Keith C. Whightsil and Transportation Safety Consultants, Inc did not change the federal motor Carrier of Charles L. Freeman III dba Renegade Transportation.
By admitting the plaintiff's allegations Keith C. Whightsil and Transportation Safety Consultants, Inc are guilty of violating The Kansas Consumer Protection Act (“KCPA”)
Chapter 50: Unfair Trade And Consumer Protection
Article 6: Consumer Protection
Statute 50-623: Kansas consumer protection act; purpose; construction. This act shall be construed liberally to promote the following policies:
(a) To simplify, clarify and modernize the law governing consumer transactions;
(b) To protect consumers from suppliers who commit deceptive and unconscionable practices;
The Kansas Consumer Protection Act (“KCPA”) provides a solution to the limitations and weaknesses of the FDCPA. First, the KCPA provides for actual or civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation of the KCPA, whichever is greater. K.S.A. § 50-636 (a). This civil penalty can be enhanced to $20,000 per violation if the aggrieved plaintiff is either disabled or elderly (60 years of age or older). K.S.A. § 50-677. The KCPA has lower standard of proof than fraud, as clear and convincing evidence is not required
Second, the statute of limitations for the KCPA is three years rather than the one year limitation for the FDCPA. It should be noted that there is case law supporting the discovery rule as applied to KCPA actions. Alexander v. Certified Master Builder Corporation, 43 F.Supp.2d 1242 (D.Kan. 1999). In Alexander, Chief Judge Van Bebber held that the discovery rule is applied to a KCPA claim because it is a fraud-based claim. 43 F.Supp.2d at 1249. Judge Van Bebber’s rationale and holding applying the discovery rule to KCPA claims was extended by Judge Lungstrum in Rubin v. Riffe Homes, Inc., 1999 WL 588182, *3 (D.Kan. 1999). Specifically, Judge Lungstrum held: “In light of the KCPA’s creation of a claim similar, but not identical, to a common law fraud claim, the court is persuaded to follow Alexander and apply a discovery rule to KCPA claims.” Id. Judge Lungstrum further reasoned that “[t]he alleged fraud is considered “discovered,” thereby triggering the statute of limitations, when “the act giving rise to the cause of action causes substantial injury, or, if the fact of injury is not reasonably ascertainable until sometime after the initial act, … [when] the fact of injury becomes reasonably ascertainable to the injured party”.” Id.; quoting Schrag v. Dinges, 788 F.Supp. 1453, 1549 (D.Kan. 1992). “Or, as the Kansas Supreme Court has stated, the discovery of fraud is simultaneous with the discovery of the injury resulting from the fraud.” Id., citing Jennings v. Jennings, 211 Kan. 515, 527, 507 P.2d 241 (1973). “Accordingly, a plaintiff is considered to have discovered the fraud when he or she knew or, with reasonable diligence, should have know of the act or conduct giving rise to the injury.” Id., citing Wolf v. Brungardt, 215 Kan. 272, 524 P.2d 726 (1974). Finally, the United States District Court, District of Columbia, held in a case examining the KCPA that “Kansas law supports plaintiff’s contention that fraud-based conduct is relevant to the discovery rule, not in and of itself, but because such conduct tends to conceal from the plaintiff that it has suffered injury or that defendant’s activities have caused such injury.” In re: Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, 200 WL 1524912, *3 (D.D.C. 2000).
Complaint filed with a request for an investigation by the petitioner in the Shawnee County civil action to the United States Attorney Generals Office and the Federal Motor Carrier for Industrial Sabotage by Keith C. Whightsil and Transportation Safety Consultants, Inc has caused quite a stir in the transportation industry!
IF YOU NEED A SAFETY CONSULTANT FOR CSA-2010 DO NOT USE THIS COMPANY!
Transportation Safety Consultants, Inc. http://www.tscionline.com/ http://www.tsci.to/web/