Procedural History and Recitals Sample Clauses
Procedural History and Recitals. 1. Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a putative class action Complaint on May 13, 2022, alleging a claim for Breach of Contract on his behalf and on behalf of persons similarly situated.
2. The claims are based on Popular Bank’s standardized Personal Banking Disclosure Agreement (PBDA), drafted by Popular Bank. Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ alleged that in breach of certain contractual promises in the PBDA, Popular Bank assessed overdraft fees (“OD Fees”) on what are sometimes called “Authorize Positive, Settle Negative Transactions” (“APSN Transaction” or “APSN Transactions”), where a bank assesses OD Fees on a transaction that overdraws the account when it settles although the transaction had previously been the subject of an authorization to the merchant that was issued against sufficient available funds.
3. Popular Bank moved to compel arbitration on September 8, 2022, which the District Court denied December 9, 2022.
4. Popular Bank appealed December 22, 2022, and the case was stayed pending appeal on January 9, 2023.
1 All capitalized terms herein have the meanings ascribed to them in Section II or various places in the Agreement.
5. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the Motion to Compel Arbitration by Summary Order, and the Mandate issued January 31, 2024.
6. After the Action was remanded, before Defendant filed its planned Motion to Dismiss, and before Discovery resumed, the Parties scheduled a mediation and requested an adjournment of the scheduled case management conference pending mediation. On March 19, 2024, the Court adjourned all deadlines sine die.
7. Defendant produced, on a confidential basis and subject to mediation privilege, a large quantity of transactional data regarding OD Fees on APSN Transactions, which Plaintiff’s counsel analyzed.
8. On May 2, 2024, the Parties participated in a full-day mediation session with ▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇.), in San ▇▇▇▇, Puerto Rico. The Parties reached an agreement in principle and signed a Term Sheet that day.
9. On May 9, 2024, the Parties notified the Court of the Settlement, confirming their agreement in principle and requesting that the Court stay all deadlines in the Action until July 11, 2024, for the Parties to finalize this Agreement. The Court granted that application on May 9, 2024.
10. The Parties now agree to settle the Action in its entirety, without any admission of liability, with respect to all Released Claims of the Releasing Parties. Defendant has entered into this Agreement to resolve any and a...
Procedural History and Recitals. 1. On November 13, 2021, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ filed a putative class action complaint in the Action seeking damages, restitution, and declaratory relief arising from the allegedly unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of APPSN Fees and Retry NSF Fees.
2. On February 28, 2020, Defendant filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses. 1 All capitalized terms herein have the meanings ascribed to them in Section II or various places in the Agreement. 146358862
3. On June 1, 2020, Plaintiffs amended the Complaint, adding four new plaintiffs – ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Propsersi, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, and B Sqeaky Clean LLC.
4. On July 8, 2020, Defendant filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Amended Complaint.
5. The Court issued several scheduling orders throughout the litigation of the Case and the Parties vigorously pursued pursuant to those Order. In particular, Plaintiffs served document requests and interrogatories on March 26, 2020, to which Defendant served its written responses.
6. Plaintiffs noticed and took a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of NBT on September 22, 2020.
7. The discovery process, although professional, was often contentious. Counsel for the Parties met and conferred on various occasions regarding NBT’s discovery responses and deposition testimony. On October 27, 2020, after the Parties were unable to reach agreement on the scope of additional document production, information and testimony, including complex electronic discovery, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel additional discovery responses. Defendant filed an opposition to the motion on November 10, 2020.
8. That motion to compel remained pending when the Parties began settlement discussions. The Parties informed the Court of the discussions and, after a telephonic conference before Magistrate Judge Lovric on March 10, 2021, the Court stayed proceedings pending a mediation to be completed by July 1, 2021.
9. On June 21, 2021, the Parties participated in a mediation before ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇. The Parties did not settle at the mediation. The Parties undertook further data analysis, then reconvened for a second mediation on August 20, 2021.
10. The second day of mediation also did not result in a settlement, but the mediator made a mediator’s proposal that the Parties ultimately accepted. On August 23, 2021, the Parties filed a Status Report with the Court, confirming their agreement in principle and requesting that the Court stay all deadlines in the Action.
11. Further negotiation...
Procedural History and Recitals. 1. On June 3, 2021, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a putative class action Complaint in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, entitled Abercrombie v. TD Bank, N.A., No. CACE-21-11047. On behalf of a putative nationwide class, the Complaint asserted claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
2. On July 6, 2021, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, removing this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where 1 All capitalized terms herein have the meanings ascribed to them in Section II below or various other places in the Agreement. 146452206 it was assigned case number 0:21-cv-61376-▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇/▇▇▇▇.
3. On August 13, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
4. Plaintiff opposed the Motion on September 10, 2021.
5. Between June and September, 2021, the Parties engaged in informal discovery and exchanged information, in the context of seeking to reach a resolution to the claims through direct negotiations.
6. On September 15, 2021, the parties reached agreement in principle and executed a settlement term sheet.
7. Thereafter, the parties negotiated the details of this final Settlement Agreement and Releases.
8. The Parties now agree to settle the Action in its entirety, without any admission of liability, with respect to all Released Claims, Releasees, and Releasing Parties. Defendant has entered into this Agreement to resolve any and all controversies and disputes (directly or indirectly) arising out of or relating to the allegations made in the Complaint, and to avoid the burden, risk, uncertainty, expense, and disruption to its business operations associated with further litigation. Defendant does not in any way acknowledge, admit to or concede any of the allegations made in the Complaint, and expressly disclaims and denies any fault or liability, or any charges of wrongdoing that have been or could have been asserted in the Complaint. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be used or construed as an admission of liability, and this Agreement shall not be offered or received in evidence in any action or proceeding in any court or other forum as an admission or concession of liability or wrongdoing of any nature or for any other purpose other than to enforce the terms of this Agreement. Plaintiff has entered into this A...
Procedural History and Recitals. 2.1 On February 18, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint, which asserted a claim against the City for a violation of the Illinois Constitution’s so-called “Pension Protection Clause,” arising from the City’s increase in the cost of health insurance prescription drug copays and deductibles for retired City employees.
2.2 On July 21 2011, the trial court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and entered an order on November 2, 2011, awarding damages to Plaintiffs.
2.3 The City subsequently appealed. On May 2, 2013, the Illinois Appellate Court for the Third District reversed the trial court’s judgment, and remanded the matter to the trial court so that it could take additional evidence and determine whether each plaintiff had a vested right to receive the specific health care benefits promised in the collective bargaining agreement under which they retired. See ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ v. City of Joliet, 2013 IL App (3d) 110865, ¶ 45. On September 24, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court denied the City’s petition for leave to appeal from the Third District’s decision.
2.4 On remand, Plaintiffs filed a two-count amended Complaint on March 26, 2015. The amended Complaint alleged (1) a breach-of-contract; and (2) a violation of the Illinois Constitution’s so-called “Pension Protection Clause” based on the City’s increase in retiree health insurance deductibles and prescription drug copays. The Complaint also sought class certification for a group of City retirees.
2.5 On October 6, 2015, the Court certified a class of City retirees, which the parties subsequently amended (with Court approval) on May 18, 2016.
2.6 A period of oral and written discovery ensued through December 2016, with the parties taking witness depositions and answering interrogatories and production requests.
2.7 In January 2017, the Court approved a briefing schedule for dispositive motions. The parties subsequently filed their respective cross motions for summary judgment, the briefing of which was completed by May 30, 2017.
2.8 Before and after the filing of the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, Class Counsel thoroughly investigated the Class Members’ claims against the City. Class Counsel represent that they have further undertaken an extensive analysis of the legal principles applicable to the claims asserted against the City and the potential defenses thereto. Both Class Representatives and the City have had an opportunity to evaluate their respective positions on the merit...
Procedural History and Recitals. 2.1 On or about November 3, 2021, Plaintiff sent the PAGA Notice thereby authorizing him to represent the State of California as a private attorney general for the purposes of PAGA after the expiration of the applicable 65-day exhaustion period.
2.2 Plaintiff filed the original Complaint in the Action on or about November 10, 2021. Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wage; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) waiting time penalties; (6) wage statement violations; (7) failure to indemnify; (8) failure to timely pay wages; and (9) unfair competition.
2.3 Thereafter, individual defendant ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ was dismissed without prejudice. As a result, the only remaining defendant in the Action was The ▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇ Company, L.L.C.
2.4 Plaintiff filed a separate Complaint in the PAGA Action on or about January 10, 2022.
2.5 On December 15, 2022, the Parties participated in a mediation session before mediator ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, an experienced mediator who has mediated numerous wage-hour class actions. After the mediation session, the Parties reached the basic terms of a settlement of the Action and the PAGA Action.
2.6 As a condition of the settlement, Plaintiff agrees to file, within fifteen (15) days of the date this Settlement Agreement is fully executed, a First Amended Complaint adding all potential claims under the FCRA, the CCCRAA, the ICRAA, and to add a claim for PAGA civil penalties based on the Labor Code violations alleged in the Complaint in the Action. Plaintiff further agreed to file all documents needed to effect dismissal without prejudice of the separately pending PAGA Action, thereby effectively consolidating the two (2) actions.
2.7 Defendant denies each of the claims in the Operative Complaint, and further denies that it is liable to Plaintiff or the Class, or the State of California, or the PAGA Members, and further denies that, for any purpose other than settling the Action, this Action is appropriate for class or representative action treatment.
2.8 Prior to mediation Plaintiff obtained, through informal discovery: (1) time and payroll records for 605 Class Members; (2) all wage statements for ten (10) Class Members who worked throughout the entire Class Period; (3) applicable collective bargaining agreements;
Procedural History and Recitals. 20 2.1 On or about January 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Complaint purporting to 21 assert putative class action claims against INTERTEK TESTING SERVICES NA, INC. 22 (erroneously sued as “Intertek Testing Services”) and INTERTEK USA, INC., on behalf 23 all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants 24 within the State of California at any time from four years prior to the filing of the 25 Complaint through the present. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (a) 26 Failure to pay overtime (“in violation of Cal. Labor Code sections 510 and 1198”); (b) 27 Failure to provide meal periods (“in violation of the Wage Orders and California Labor 28 Code sections 226.7 and 512(a)”); (c) Failure to provide rest breaks (“in violation of the 1 Wage Orders and California Labor Code section 226.7”); (d) Failure to pay minimum 2 wages (“in violation of the Wage Orders and California Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, 3 1197.1”); (e) Failure to timely pay wages upon termination (“in violation of California 4 Labor Code sections 201 and 202”); (f) Failure to timely pay wages during employment 5 (“in violation of California Labor Code section 204”); (g) Failure to provide compliant 6 wage statements (“in violation of California Labor Code section 226(a)”); (h) Failure to 7 keep complete or accurate wage statements (“in violation of California Labor Code 8 section 1174(d)”); (i) Failure to reimburse necessary business expenses (“in violation of 9 California Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802.”); (j) Violation of California Business & 10 Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.; and (k) Violation of California Labor Code 11 sections 2698 et seq.
12 2.2 On or about March 18, 2016, Defendants answered the Complaint, in 13 which they denied the allegations contained therein and alleged a number of affirmative 14 defenses to the claims contained in the Complaint.
15 2.3 On September 29, 2016, the Parties participated in a mediation session 16 before mediator ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Esq., an experienced mediator who has mediated numerous
18 a settlement and agreed to prepare this formal settlement agreement, subject to approval 19 by the Court.
20 2.4 Defendants deny that they are liable to Plaintiff or the Class and further 21 deny that, for any purpose other than settling the Action, this Action is appropriate for 22 class treatment.
23 2.5 Class Counsel represent that they have thoroughly investigated the claims 24 alleged against Defendant...
Procedural History and Recitals. 2.1. On April 16, 2021, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed this lawsuit in Alameda County Superior
Procedural History and Recitals. 1. On February 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action Complaint in the ▇▇▇▇▇▇ County Superior Court for the State of Georgia, entitled ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇, et al.
Procedural History and Recitals a. On or about December 19, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint, asserting putative class action claims against AAA NCNU on behalf of a putative class defined as “All persons who provide emergency road service for AAA NCNU or performed emergency road services for AAA NCNU in the State of California and who were treated as independent contractors by AAA NCNU but over whom AAA NCNU exercised control and direction in the performance of their emergency road services.” The Complaint alleged the following causes of action: 1) violation of California Labor Code section 2802, on behalf of Plaintiffs and the
b. On or about February 13, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against AAA NCNU on behalf of two separate putative classes: 1) the Independent Contractor Class, defined as “All persons who currently perform, or have performed emergency road service for AAA NCNU in the State of California and who were misclassified and labeled as independent contractors by AAA NCNU”; and 2) the Breach of Contract Class, defined as “All AAA NCNU Contract Stations that were signatories to the Emergency Road Service Contract Station Agreement and that performed emergency road services for AAA NCNU in the State of California under the terms of the Emergency Road Service Contract Station Agreement.” The FAC alleged the following causes of action: 1) violation of California Labor Code section 2802, on behalf of Plaintiffs and the putative Independent Contractor Class; 2) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., on behalf of Plaintiffs, the putative Independent Contractor Class and the putative Breach of Contract Class; 3) breach of contract, on behalf of Plaintiffs and the putative Breach of Contract Class; and 4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, on behalf of Plaintiffs and the putative Breach of Contract Class.
c. On or about May 9, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against AAA NCNU on behalf of two separate putative classes: 1) the Independent Contractor Class, defined as “All persons who currently perform, or have performed, emergency road service for AAA NCNU in the State of California and who were misclassified as independent contractors by AAA NCNU”; and 2) the Breach of Contract Class, defined as “All AAA NCNU Contract Stations that were signatories to the Emergency Road Service Contract Station Agreement and that performed emergency road servic...
Procedural History and Recitals. On or about January 9, 2019, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a Class Action Complaint against Kann Enterprises, Inc. and Triune Logistics, LLC alleging claims for (1) failure to pay all overtime wages owed (Labor Code §§ 204, 510, 558, 1194, 1198); (2) failure to pay all minimum wages owed (Labor Code §§ 1194, 1194.2, 1197); (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (Labor Code § 226); and failure to reimburse necessary business expenses (Labor Code § 2802); and (6) unfair competition (Bus & Prof Code § 17200 et seq.). On or about March 18, 2019, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a First Amended Complaint adding a representative claim for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act under Labor Code sections 2698, et seq. On or about July 26, 2019, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on behalf of himself and other similarly situated non-exempt former and current employees filed a class action lawsuit against Tireco, Inc. and Personnel Staffing Group, LLC for: (1) failure to provide required meal periods; (2) failure to provide required rest periods; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (5) failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; (6) failure to maintain required records; (7) failure to furnish accurate itemized statements; (8) unfair and unlawful business practices; and (9) penalties under Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. On or about October 28, 2019, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a First Amended Complaint adding defendants Kann Enterprises, Inc. and Wilde Management Group, LLC. On or about January 15, 2021, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a Second Amended Complaint adding Defendant Metropolitan Associates, LLC. The parties engaged in written discovery and produced documents, including financials of Defendant Kann Enterprise, LLC. On or about December 13, 2021, the parties engaged in a private mediation before mediator ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ in an effort to globally resolve the Action. After mediation the parties agreed in principal to a global settlement on a class-wide basis of all the claims in the Action, subject to Court approval. As part of this settlement, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ agreed to dismiss his action and ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ agreed to file a Second Amended Complaint to add the claims of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and add the dismissed defendants from the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ case. On or about May 3, 2022, counsel for ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed a Joint Stipulation for approval to file the Second Amended Complaint. On May 10, 2022, the Court sig...