FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS Sample Clauses
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1. On October 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ House based on a cyberattack on ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ House’s network in June 2021 (the “Incident”), alleging claims of negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment (the “Litigation”).
2. On December 22, 2021, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ House filed its Motion to Dismiss, which was then fully briefed by both Parties. On February 8, 2022, the Parties jointly moved to stay the case to allow the Parties to mediate. During the case management conference on February 9, 2022, Judge ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ granted the Motion to stay the case, deferring ruling on the Motion and referred the case to mediation.
3. Following arms-length negotiations, the Parties negotiated a settlement with the assistance of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Esq. at a mediation on May 12, 2022 by which the Parties agree and hereby wish to resolve all matters pertaining to, arising from, or associated with the Litigation, including all claims Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members have or may have had against ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ House and related persons and entities, as set forth herein.
4. The Parties have agreed to settle the Litigation on the terms and conditions set forth herein in recognition that the outcome of the Litigation is uncertain and that achieving a final result through litigation would require substantial additional risk, uncertainty, discovery, time, and expense for both of the Parties.
5. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ House denies all claims of wrongdoing or liability that Plaintiff, Settlement Class Members, or anyone else have asserted in this Litigation or may assert in the future. Despite ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ House’s position that it is not liable for, and has good defenses to, the claims alleged in the Litigation, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ House desires to settle the Litigation, and thus avoid the expense, risk, exposure, inconvenience, uncertainty, and distraction of continued litigation of any action relating to the matters being fully settled and finally resolved and released in this Settlement Agreement. Neither this Settlement Agreement, nor any negotiation or act performed or document created in relation to the Settlement Agreement or negotiation or discussion thereof is, or may be deemed to be, or may be used as, an admission of, or evidence of, any wrongdoing or liability.
6. The Parties now enter into this Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff and Class Counsel have con...
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1. On July 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendants and ADP, LLC1 in the Circuit Court of ▇▇▇▇ County alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. Plaintiff moved for leave to amend her Complaint to add Loews COH Operating Company, LLC as a defendant on April 5, 2019. Plaintiff’s motion was granted on April 12, 2019, and Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint in the Circuit Court of ▇▇▇▇ County on April 12, 2019. On May 10, 2019, Defendant Loews COH Operating Company, LLC, filed a Notice of Removal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on May 24, 2019, and the motion was fully briefed on November 8, 2019.
2. In an effort to reach a resolution of this matter, Counsel for the Parties jointly moved to stay the Action pending mediation on December 5, 2019. On February 24, 2020, the Parties participated in a full-day mediation with ▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Denlow (Ret.). Though the Action did not settle at mediation, Counsel for the Parties continued to engage in settlement negotiations with the help of Judge Denlow through the spring of 2020, ultimately reaching an agreement in principle on May 29, 2020.
3. Following arms-length negotiations, the Parties have negotiated a settlement in which the Parties agree to resolve all claims which relate to or arise out of Loews Chicago Hotel and Loews Chicago ▇’▇▇▇▇ Hotel in Illinois, and which relate in any way to information that is or could be protected under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq., or any other similar state, local, or federal law, regulation, ordinance, or common law. Defendants represent there are approximately 1,244 members of the Settlement Class, 804 of which are non- union members, and 422 of which are union members, which Defendants understand and agree is a material term of the settlement.
4. The Parties have agreed to settle the Action on the terms and conditions set forth herein in recognition that the outcome of the Action is uncertain and that achieving a final result through litigation would require substantial additional risk, discovery, time, and expense.
1 Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss ADP, LLC on January 8, 2020. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion on January 16, 2020.
5. Defendants denied and continue to deny all allegations of w...
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1. On November 17, 2017, Dicha (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇) ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a putative class action lawsuit against certain defendants, including Defendants, in the Third Judicial Circuit Court of Illinois, Madison County, alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS § 14/1, et seq. (“BIPA”) (referred to as the “▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Litigation”). The ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Litigation was dismissed without prejudice on November 6, 2019.
2. On December 23, 2019, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a putative class action lawsuit against Defendants in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court of Illinois, St. Clair County, alleging violations of BIPA. The Litigation was assigned to, and is pending before, the Honorable Judge ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (the “Court”).
3. Thereafter, the Parties engaged in motion practice and extensive discovery in the Litigation.
4. While discovery was ongoing, the Parties participated in a formal, full-day mediation session with the Honorable Judge ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (Ret.) of JAMS via Zoom.
5. Following mediation, the parties engaged in months-long, arms’ length negotiations with the assistance of Judge ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. As a result of those negotiations, the Parties reached agreement on the terms of a settlement by which the Parties wish to resolve the Litigation, and as set forth herein, all claims Plaintiff and members of the class she seeks to represent have or may have had against the Releasees.
6. As part of the settlement, the Parties have agreed to settle the Litigation on the terms and conditions set forth herein in recognition that the outcome of the Litigation is uncertain and that achieving a final result through litigation would require substantial additional risk, discovery, time, and expense.
7. Defendants denied and continue to deny each and every allegation and all charges of wrongdoing or liability of any kind whatsoever that Plaintiff or members of the Settlement Class presently have asserted in this Litigation or may in the future assert. Despite Defendants’ belief that they are not liable for, and have good defenses to, the claims alleged in the Litigation, Defendants desire to settle the Litigation, and thus avoid the expense, risk, exposure, inconvenience, and distraction of continued litigation of any action or proceeding relating to the matters being fully settled and finally put to rest in this Settlement Agreement. Neither this Settlement Agreement, nor any negotiation or act performed or document created in relation to the Settlement Agreement o...
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1. On or around December 27, 2023, HBSC was a target of a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to certain third-party applications utilized by HBSC. When HBSC detected the incident, it took action to contain it and remediate any issues related to the incident.
2. Following the December 2023 cybersecurity incident, multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed against HBSC.
3. On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a putative class action complaint against HBSC in the Tulare County Superior Court with the caption ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ v. Hapy Bear Surgery Center, LLC, Case No. VCU307987 (“▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇”). ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ brought claims against HBSC related to the December 2023 cybersecurity incident.
4. On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a putative class action complaint against HBSC in the Tulare County Superior Court with the caption ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ v. Hapy Bear Surgery Center, LLC, Case No. VCU308221 (“▇▇▇▇▇▇▇”). ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ brought claims against HBSC related to the December 2023 cybersecurity incident.
5. On June 24, 2024, the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ actions were consolidated before Judge ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of the Tulare County Superior Court under the caption of the first filed ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ case titled In re Hapy Bear Surgery Center Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. VCU307987 (the “Action”).
6. Plaintiffs collectively filed a consolidated complaint on July 24, 2024.
7. The Parties’ Counsel are experienced litigators in consumer protection, data privacy, and data breach litigation. The Parties exchanged confidential information related to the December 27, 2023 cybersecurity incident that allowed the Parties to assess all aspects of the case and meaningfully engage in arms-length settlement negotiations. HBSC provided informal discovery responses that included a summary of the facts based on the investigation into the cybersecurity incident as well as its recovery and restoration process and hardening measures. HBSC also provided and directed Plaintiffs to information regarding the approximate total number of US customers impacted by the incident. These discussions eventually led to a private mediation.
8. On July 19, 2024, the Parties conducted an all-day mediation with the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. Jones of Resolute Dispute Resolution in an effort to reach a settlement agreement. The Parties reached a settlement agreement during the mediation.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1. Plaintiffs allege that, on December 14, 2022, Builders Mutual’s network was hacked (the “Data Incident”). Plaintiffs allege that this hacking exposed certain personally identifiable information (“PII”) as well as personal health information (“PHI”) of Builders Mutual’s stakeholders, customers, employees of policyholders, current and former employees, and claimants. Specifically, the following types of PII were allegedly exposed: names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical information, health insurance information, and worker’s compensation information provided in connection with employment. On September 29, 2023, Builders Mutual began notifying Plaintiffs and the putative Settlement Class about the Data Incident.
2. On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed an action against Builders Mutual in the Eastern District of North Carolina, titled ▇▇▇▇▇▇ v. Builders Mutual Insurance Company et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-579-M.
3. On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a class action complaint against Defendant arising out of the same Data Incident (Case No.5:23-cv-00597-BO) and on October 27, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a class action complaint against Defendant arising out of the same Data Incident (Case No. 4:23-cv-00181-M).
4. Plaintiffs moved to consolidate their actions on November 7, 2023, which was granted by the Court. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Consolidated Complaint on January 16, 2024 alleging: Negligence, Negligence Per Se, Breach of Implied Contract, Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, Unjust Enrichment, and Violation of the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.
5. On April 29, 2024, counsel for the Parties mediated this matter before retired Federal Magistrate Judge ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ of JAMS. The mediation resulted in a proposed agreement including certain material terms, which are memorialized in this Agreement.
6. The Parties have agreed to settle the Litigation on the terms and conditions set forth herein in recognition that the outcome of the Litigation is uncertain and that achieving a final result through litigation would require substantial additional risk, uncertainty, discovery, time, and expense for the Parties.
7. Builders Mutual denies all allegations of wrongdoing or liability that Plaintiffs, Settlement Class Members, or anyone else have asserted in this ...
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1. Plaintiffs allege that in May 2021, IWP discovered unauthorized access to certain email accounts (the “Data Incident”), beginning in January 2021. Plaintiffs alleged that the Data Incident resulted in the potential exposure of certain personally identifiable information (“PII”) and personal health information (“PHI”) of IWP’s current and former customers. Specifically, the following types of PII were allegedly exposed: name, address, date of birth, email address, Social Security number, driver’s license, payment card information, financial account information, patient identification number, medical record number, treating or referring physician, treatment information, prescription information, health insurance information, and Medicare or Medicaid number. In February 2022, IWP began notifying Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class about the Data Incident.
2. On May 24, 2022, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed the Litigation, alleging the following claims: negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty.
3. Following full briefing, the Court granted IWP’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed in part and remanded.
4. After additional motion to dismiss briefing, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs’ negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims could proceed.
5. On March 5, 2024, after a period of informal discovery and mutual exchange of information, the Parties engaged in a private mediation with Judge ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇.) from JAMS, an experienced mediator. Throughout their mediation session, the Parties engaged in an extensive evaluation and discussion of the relevant facts and law, and the Parties carefully considered the risk and uncertainties of continued litigation and all other factors bearing on the merits of settlement. Although the mediation did not result in a settlement, the parties continued their negotiations and, in the following weeks, succeeded in reaching agreement on the principal terms of a settlement—subject to final mutual agreement on all the necessary documentation.
6. The Parties have agreed to settle the Litigation on the terms and conditions set forth herein in recognition that the outcome of the Litigation is uncertain and that achieving a final result through litigation would require substantial additional risk, uncertainty, discovery, t...
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. On February 13, 2009, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a putative collective action lawsuit against Defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), seeking to represent a collective group consisting of all bank tellers employed by Defendants in the United States. (D.Kan. Case No. 09-2073, Doc. 1).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1. On January 7, 2019, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (“Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇”) filed a class action lawsuit against Defendant Paychex Inc. alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS § 14/1, et seq. (“BIPA”), in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The case was assigned to Judge ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, who has since retired.
2. On February 7, 2019, Defendant timely removed the Litigation to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1441(a), 1446, and 1453. The case was initially assigned to the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ S. Shah, and captioned ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Inc. No. 19-cv-00803.
3. On April 2, 2019, before Judge ▇▇▇▇, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a motion to remand, arguing that the District Court lacked Article III jurisdiction over the claims in Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ initial Complaint.
4. Following briefing on Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ motion to remand, the District Court entered an order denying Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ motion.
5. On May 8, 2019, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed her First Amended Complaint, adding Schlage Lock Company LLC as a defendant.
6. Before responsive pleadings were filed and following informal discovery between the Parties regarding Schlage Lock Company’s role in the conduct at issue, on July 24, 2019, after being given leave by the Court, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed her Second Amended Complaint, removing Schlage Lock Company LLC as a defendant in this matter and adding ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ as a second named plaintiff.
7. On August 22, 2019, this case was randomly selected to be reassigned to form the initial calendar for the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇. Rowland.
8. On August 28, 2019, Defendant answered Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and moved for summary judgment, or alternatively, judgment on the pleadings.
9. On October 7, 2019, Judge ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ entered a discovery schedule, and the Parties began Rule 56(d) discovery pursuant to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. FILED DATE: 4/29/2021 8:36 PM 2019CH00205
10. On February 4, 2020, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ dismissed her claims against Defendant with prejudice.
11. During discovery, the Parties agreed to attempt to resolve the Litigation through participation in a remotely-conducted, full-day mediation session overseen by the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇.) of JAMS in Chicago, Illinois. Discovery was stayed pending the Parties’ engagement in settlement discussions.
12. On August 20, 2020, the Parties engaged in a full-day, arm’s-length mediat...
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1. On June 13, 2022, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a class action lawsuit against ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ based on a cyberattack on Allwell’s network in March 2022 (the “Incident”), alleging claims of negligence, negligence per se, breach of confidence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment in the Southern District of Ohio.
2. On June 23, 2022, Plaintiff ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a class action lawsuit against Allwell based on the Incident, alleging claims of negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the CSPA, 1345.01, et seq. in the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas.
3. Following arms’-length negotiations, the Parties negotiated a settlement with the assistance of ▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇.) at a mediation on November 29, 2022, by which the Parties agree and hereby wish to resolve all matters pertaining to, arising from, or associated with the Litigation, including all claims Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members have or may have had against Allwell and related persons and entities, as set forth herein.
4. Following the mediation which was conducted on behalf of Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ from the case styled ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Behavioral Health Services, Case No. 2:22CV02468, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ agreed that the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ action would voluntarily dismiss without prejudice from the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ then joined an amended complaint that was filed in the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ action pending in the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas.
5. The Amended Complaint pending in the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ case alleges causes of action for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the CSPA, 1345.01, et seq. relating to the Data Breach that ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ experienced in March 2022 and potentially impacted Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, telephone numbers, bank routing numbers, bank account numbers, and drivers’ license numbers (collectively referred to in this Settlement as “Private Information”).
6. The Parties have agreed to settle the Litigation on the terms and conditions set forth herein in recognition that the outcome of the Litigation is uncertain and that achieving a final result through litigation would require substantial additional risk, uncertainty, discovery, time, and expense for the Parties.
7. Allwell denies ...
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1.1 On March 31, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint in the Circu▇▇ ▇ourt of Cook County, Illinois, ▇▇▇tioned Veiga, et al. v. Respondus, Inc., No. 2021-CH-01544 (the Lawsuit), seeking damages and injunctive relief against Defendant for alleged violations of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. (BIPA), based on Defendant allegedly collecting biometric identifiers and/or biometric information (collectively, biometric data) through the use of Defendants Respondus Monitor application without complying with BIPAs requirements.1 The other Plaintiffs also filed related lawsuits against various clients of Respondus.
1.2 On May 14, 2021, Defendant removed the Lawsuit to federal court.
1.3 On June 4, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to compel individual arbitration and to stay all proceedings in the Lawsuit, seeking to enforce an arbitration provision in its Terms of Use.
1.4 On March 23, 2022, the Court denied Defendants motion to compel individual arbitration and to stay all proceedings.
1.5 On April 6, 2022, Defendant filed its answer to the class action complaint.
1.6 On April 22, 2022, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, requesting that the Court reconsider its rulings on certain issues or, in the alternative, certify two issues for interlocutory appeal.
1.7 On April 22, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit of the Courts denial of its motion to compel ind▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇tration of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇s claims, and the parties filed opening and response briefs in that appeal.
1.8 On August 15, 2022, the Court denied Defendants motion for reconsideration and request for certification of two issues for ▇▇▇▇▇locutory appe▇▇. ▇ ▇▇iga, along with ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ v. Respondus, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-▇▇-▇▇692 (N.D. Ill.) and Hinds v. Respondus, Inc., No. 2020C▇▇▇▇14, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, are collectively referred to herein as the Litigation. Plaintiffs ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇, and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed BIPA lawsuits against certain of Respondus customers, which also are resolved by this Settlement. Those lawsuits are referred to a▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇, and ▇▇▇▇▇▇, respectively.
1.9 On May 19 and June 28, 2022, the Parties and Respondus insurers participated in medi▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ with mediator ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of the Circuit Mediation Office for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. While these initial mediation sessions did no...