LITIGATION BACKGROUND Sample Clauses

LITIGATION BACKGROUND. On November 19, 2004, the Class Representatives filed a Class Action Complaint against Novartis in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of female sales force employees of Novartis under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq. The Fourth Amended Complaint was filed on March 13, 2006. On January 16, 2007, the Class Representatives filed their Motion to Certify a Class, and on July 31, 2007, the Court granted the certification motion. On August 16, 2007, the Court issued an Amended Opinion and Order certifying the proposed class, and issued notice of court approval of class certification on December 7, 2007. The notice was addressed to all women who were employed in certain sales-related positions with Novartis in the period between July 15, 2002, and November 30, 2007. A jury trial commenced on April 7, 2010. The jury delivered a verdict on behalf of Plaintiffs on all counts and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The trial concluded on May 19, 2010, with equitable relief and non-monetary relief to be ordered by the Court at a later date. In order to secure certain, prompt and extensive relief for the Proposed Settlement Class and to avoid the risk of future litigation and appeals, the Parties engaged in vigorous settlement negotiations. In July 2010, the Parties reached an agreement providing for the settlement of the class action and executed a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement” or “Settlement Agreement”). The Parties agree that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and that it serves the best interest of the Proposed Settlement Class based on all the facts and circumstances.

LITIGATION BACKGROUND. ‌ 1. On April 20, 2015, plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ and others, filed the Action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated class members whose Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were allegedly violated by the City and its CPD officers. The complaint filed in the Action has been amended from time to time. 2. The Action originally was assigned to the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇. St. Eve and subsequently was transferred to the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. Wood. The Action is currently pending before the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. Wood and Magistrate Judge ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. 3. The Complaint alleges class claims that Defendants have maintained a policy or custom of unconstitutional stops of individuals by CPD officers, without reasonable articulable suspicion in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the principles set forth in ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The Complaint further alleges additional class claims that many of these alleged stops violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition to the class claims, the Individual Plaintiffs bring individual federal and state law claims stemming from their individual encounters with CPD officers. Plaintiffs contend that some of these alleged unconstitutional encounters included investigatory stops conducted during the enforcement of the Loitering Ordinances. 4. On June 27, 2017, the Defendants filed their respective answers to the Complaint, denying any and all liability and the material allegations of Plaintiffs' claims. 5. On December 10, 2015, the Court entered a discovery schedule for the Action. The Parties then commenced class, merits, and damages discovery both as to the Individual Plaintiffs and class issues. 6. The Parties have exchanged documents both informally and formally, and have conducted extensive written and oral discovery. During the course of the Action, the City produced to Plaintiffs tens of thousands of pages of documents, including the Contact Card and Investigatory Stop Report databases and other data. The City took the depositions of the four took over forty-five (45) additional depositions of various parties, third-parties and expert witnesses. 7. On November 20, 2017, the Settlement Class Representatives filed Plaintiffs’ Motion For Rule 23(b)(3)

LITIGATION BACKGROUND. A. Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ commenced this Action by filing a Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial on July 11, 2019. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed an Amended Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial on September 11, 2019. ECF No.

LITIGATION BACKGROUND. A. Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, Defendant deceptively advertised discounts of its products, including Sitewide Discounts that purported to apply sitewide (except for a certain number of excluded products) on the Hot Topic Website. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ filed suit on March 15, 2023, in the Central District of California. Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ joined that suit on April 5, 2023. And Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a suit in the District of Oregon on August 25, 2023. Plaintiffs allege violations of certain California and Oregon consumer protection statutes, and bring claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and restitution in amounts by which Defendant was allegedly unjustly enriched based on its product sales. B. Defendant expressly denies any deceptive advertising and further denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind or that Plaintiffs or any putative Class member has been damaged in any amount or at all in connection with the claims alleged in the Action, and further contends that, for any purpose other than Settlement, this Action is not appropriate for class treatment. Defendant does not admit or concede any actual or potential fault, wrongdoing, or liability against it in the Actions or any other actions. Defendant maintained during the entire pendency of the Actions, and continues to maintain, that Plaintiffs misrepresent Defendant’s advertising practices, which are not deceptive or misleading as a matter of law. C. In the ▇▇▇▇▇ case, on July 10, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint in its entirety, challenging each of Plaintiffs’ claims on a variety of grounds. Defendant also filed a request for judicial notice, asking the Court to take notice of multiple documents that Defendant argued were relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and the motion to dismiss. The Parties extensively briefed the issues raised by Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court issued an order on the motion to dismiss on November 16, 2023, granting Defendant’s DocuSign Envelope ID: 22A46851-61DB-445F-A46C-D3152294B406 motion and giving Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. In response, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 12, 2023. D. After briefing the motion to dismiss, the Parties began discussing settlement of both the California and Oregon cases, and engaged in negotiati...

LITIGATION BACKGROUND. A. Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, Defendant deceptively advertised discounts of its products on its website, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed suit on June 7, 2023, in the Eastern District of California. Following the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ action, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ informed Defendant of similar allegations regarding its online discounts. Together, Plaintiffs allege violations of certain California, Oregon, and Washington consumer protection statutes, and bring claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, and intentional and negligent misrepresentation. They seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and restitution in amounts by which Defendant was allegedly unjustly enriched based on its product sales. B. Defendant expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind or that Plaintiffs or any putative Class Member has been damaged in any amount or at all in connection with the claims alleged in the Action, and further contends that, for any purpose other than Settlement, this Action is not appropriate for class treatment. Defendant does not admit or concede any actual or potential fault, wrongdoing, or liability against it in the Action or any other actions. Defendant maintained during the entire pendency of the Action, and continues to maintain, that the challenged advertising practices are not deceptive or misleading as a matter of law. C. In the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ case, Defendant filed a comprehensive Motion to Dismiss the entirety of ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Complaint on August 30, 2023, and filed a Motion to Stay the case on September 6, 2023. In response to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a detailed First Amended Complaint on September 13, 2024. Defendant filed a renewed Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint on October 5, 2023, challenging each of Plaintiff’s claims on a variety of grounds. The Parties extensively briefed the issues raised by Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, as well as Defendant’s Motion to Stay. While briefing the issues raised in the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff also served extensive Requests for Production, Requests for Admission, and Interrogatories, as well as a thorough Deposition Notice under FRCP 30(B)(6). Defendant responded to this discovery in November, 2023. D. The Parties began discussing settlement in May, 2024, and engaged in extensive negotiations regarding Plaintiffs’ claims. The Parties scheduled a...

LITIGATION BACKGROUND. 40. On or about June 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed with the LWDA a PAGA notice letter which stated that Plaintiff intended to seek civil penalties against Urban for various violations of the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders. On September 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed her initial complaint against ▇▇▇▇▇ in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. 41. Within 5 days of execution of this Settlement Agreement, the Parties will request leave from the Court for Plaintiff to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint as set forth in Section IV.D. The proposed Second Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) asserts class and representative action claims under California law for (1) failure to pay minimum wage, (2) failure to pay overtime or pay overtime at the correct rate of pay, (3) failure to pay for all hours worked (off-the-clock work), (4) failure to provide meal periods, (5) failure to provide rest periods, (6) failure to pay premiums at the correct rate of pay, (7) failure to timely pay final wages and wages earned during employment, (8) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and (9) failure to maintain accurate and complete records. 42. Urban denies Plaintiff’s claims, and asserts that ▇▇▇▇▇ has complied with all applicable labor laws. Consequently, ▇▇▇▇▇ does not believe that any liability to Plaintiff, the State of California or the LWDA, or to any other individual whom Plaintiff seeks to represent exists, or that Plaintiff, the State of California or the LWDA, or any other any other individual whom Plaintiff seeks to represent are entitled to any recovery in the Action. 43. On May 26, 2022, the Parties participated in a mediation with experienced mediator ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇, Esq. After the mediation, the Parties accepted a mediator’s proposal as to certain material terms of the Settlement, including the Maximum Settlement Amount. The terms of the settlement are now set forth in complete and final form in this Settlement. 44. Neither this Settlement, nor any final judgment pursuant to this Settlement, will constitute an admission of any form of wrongdoing or liability on the part of Urban or the accuracy of any allegation raised in the Action. This Settlement is entered into in compromise of disputed claims. Plaintiff and Urban intend, by their actions pursuant to this Settlement, merely to avoid the expense, delay, uncertainty, and burden of litigation. T...

LITIGATION BACKGROUND. 2 A. On January, 24, 2018, eight Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint in the 3 United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants 4 employed a corporate policy and/or practice to provide Guest Information to agents of 5 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and/or other Federal Immigration 6 Authorities. Plaintiffs challenge Defendants’ alleged policy and/or practice as 7 unauthorized disclosures of private information and as discriminatory, unconstitutional, a 8 violation of state laws protecting consumers, and a violation of Defendants’ privacy 9 policy. 10 B. On May 8, 2018, Defendants filed an answer and defenses to the class 11 action complaint and denied any wrongdoing or violation of the law. 12 C. On June 15, 2018, the Parties engaged in a day-long mediation before 13 ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Esq., a professional mediator. The mediation resulted in a tentative 14 settlement. 15 D. On July 6, 2018, the Parties filed a joint certification with the Court that 16 indicated that the Parties agreed to a tentative settlement that would resolve the 17 Plaintiffs’, Class Members’, and Injunctive Relief Class Members’ claims against 18 Defendants. 19 E. On November 2, 2018, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary 20 Approval of Class Action Settlement (the “Joint Motion”) with the Court. 21 F. On January 29, 2019, the Parties appeared before the Court for a hearing on 22 the Joint Motion, at which time the Court expressed certain questions and concerns, and 23 allowed the Parties an additional period of time to address those questions and concerns 24 in a new motion to be filed in support of the settlement agreement. 25 G. On April 3, 2019, the Parties engaged in an additional day-long mediation 26 before ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, which resulted in certain agreed upon changes to the complaint 27 and settlement. 1 H. On June 5, 2019, Plaintiffs filed, with Defendants’ consent, an Amended 2 Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (the “Amended 3 Complaint”).

LITIGATION BACKGROUND. A. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased food products for delivery through Defendant’s App and Website during the Class Period. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant’s representations regarding its delivery fees, service fees, and menu prices on its delivery orders during the Class Period were false or misleading. Plaintiffs ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ each filed putative class action lawsuits. On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, a resident of the State of California and a nonmember of Chipotle’s customer loyalty program, filed his action on behalf of all California consumers who purchased food for delivery from Chipotle beginning on or about May 2020 and alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. (▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et. al.

LITIGATION BACKGROUND. 28 A. On January, 24, 2018, eight Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint in the ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ for the District of Arizona. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants 1 employ a corporate policy and/or practice to provide Guest Information to agents of 2 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and/or other Federal Immigration 3 Authorities. Plaintiffs challenge Defendants’ alleged policy and/or practice as 4 unauthorized disclosures of private information and as discriminatory, unconstitutional, a 5 violation of state laws protecting consumers, and a violation of Defendants’ privacy 6 policy. 7 B. On May 8, 2018, Defendants filed an answer and defenses to the class 8 action complaint and denied any wrongdoing or violation of the law. 9 C. On June 15, 2018, the Parties engaged in a day-long mediation before 10 ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Esq., a professional mediator, as mediator. The mediation resulted 11 in a tentative settlement. 12 D. On July 6, 2018, the Parties filed a joint certification with the Court that 13 indicated that the Parties agreed to a tentative settlement that would resolve the Plaintiffs’ 14 and Class Members’ claims against Defendants.