RECITALS AND BACKGROUND Sample Clauses

RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. Named Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint on December 3, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which was assigned docket number 08-cv-4874 (the “Action”).

RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. On February 18, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a class action Complaint in King County Washington, Case No. 22-2-02546-8 (“Lawsuit”). The Lawsuit was removed to United States District Court for Western Washington (Case No. 2:22-cv-00339-BJR) and amended to include a FLSA collective action. The Lawsuit alleges that Defendant failed to properly pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees unpaid overtime wages under the Washington Minimum Wage Act, RCW 49.46 et seq., the Washington Wage Rebate Act, RCW 49.52 et seq., the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. and under any applicable local, state or federal wage and hour laws. 1. Plaintiffs made claims under Washington law (“Washington Claims”) and under federal laws (“FLSA Claims”). 2. On July 1, 2022, Plaintiffs moved to conditionally certify a nationwide FLSA collective action of employees. 3. The Parties entered into a CR2(A) agreement to resolve all claims prior to the Court ruling on the motion for conditional certification of the nationwide FLSA Claims. 4. The Parties have exchanged discovery. Defendant produced documents and data, including payroll data, showing Plaintiffs’ and Settlement Class Members’ weekly earnings and timekeeping data for the period from February 18, 2019, until September 19, 2022 (“Class Period”). 5. The Parties agreed to attend a mediation session. This mediation took place on September 12, 2022, with ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ serving as the third-party mediator. The Parties reached an agreement at the conclusion of the mediation and executed a memorandum of understanding on November 7, 2022. 6. For purposes of settlement only, Defendant has agreed to stipulate to Plaintiffs’ certification of a FLSA opt-out Collective Action and Certification under Washington Court Rule 23 of the Washington Claims. 7. The Parties have thoroughly investigated the claims being released by this settlement. Both sides have exchanged discovery and analyzed Defendant’s payroll and timekeeping data to determine potential damages. Plaintiffs’ counsel has interviewed many Opt-in Plaintiffs. Based on each Party’s independent investigation and evaluation, the Parties believe that a settlement based on the settlement amounts and terms set forth in this Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and is in the best interest of Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class in light of all known facts and circumstances, including the risk of delay, the allegations asserted by Plaintiffs, and the defenses a...

RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. D.1. MEGA is and has been a licensed insurance company domiciled in the State of Oklahoma. D.2. Mid-West is a licensed insurance company domiciled in the State of Texas. Mid- West was formerly domiciled in the State of Tennessee. D.3. Chesapeake is and has been a licensed insurance company domiciled in the State of Oklahoma. D.4. MEGA and Mid-West are subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. (“HealthMarkets”) (formerly known as UICI), a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in North Richland Hills, Texas. Chesapeake is a subsidiary of MEGA. MEGA, Mid-West, and Chesapeake are each bound by any continuing conditions imposed upon them, regardless of their subsidiary status. D.5. On March 15, 2005, the States of Washington and Alaska issued a call letter to UICI1 for a multi-state examination with stated examination objectives. Those objectives are fully set forth in the Report, Attachment A to this Agreement, at pages 6 – 7.

RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. A. On March 27, 2018, certain of the Settlement Class Representatives filed a complaint against the BMW Defendants and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ LLC and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ (together, the “Bosch Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Compl. (Dkt. 1), ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, et al. v. BMW of North America, LLC et al., Case No. 2:18-cv- 04363 (D.N.J.) (the “▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ action”). The complaint asserted claims for violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(C), (D), along with various state law fraudulent concealment claims and claims for violations of various state- law consumer protection laws, and generally alleged that the BMW Defendants defrauded consumers by developing, advertising and selling model year 2009–2013 BMW X5 xDrive35d or 2009–2011 BMW 335d vehicles that were equipped with so-called “defeat devices” that turned off or down emissions controls when the vehicles were in normal operation and not in a regulatory B. On May 8, 2018, a separate complaint was filed against the BMW Defendants and the Bosch Defendants by a group of plaintiffs (including certain of the Settlement Class Representatives) also in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Compl. (Dkt. 1), ▇▇▇▇▇, et al. v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-08935 (D.N.J.) (the “▇▇▇▇▇ action”). C. On August 3, 2018, Plaintiffs’ counsel consolidated the claims asserted in the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ action and the ▇▇▇▇▇ action through the filing of a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “CCAC”) in the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ action (Dkt. 26), and voluntarily dismissed the ▇▇▇▇▇ action. D. On August 17, 2018, BMW NA filed a motion to dismiss the CCAC. (Dkt. E. On June 27, 2019, the Court entered an Order granting BMW NA’s motion to dismiss the CCAC, dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice (Dkt. 60). F. On September 20, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “FAC”), on behalf of forty-three (43) Plaintiffs asserting RICO claims for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(C), (D), along with violations of various state-law consumer protection laws. (Dkt. 65).2 G. On November 6, 2019, BMW NA filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. (Dkt. 68).3 1 At the time the motion was filed, BMW AG had not been served with the CCAC, and thus did not join in BMW NA’s motion to dismiss.

RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ commenced a putative class action in U.S. District Court, Central District of California, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion and theft of property claims as a result of Defendant’s transition of in-person instruction and other educational services to a virtual environment during a portion of the Spring 2020 semester due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related state and local public health mandates and orders.

RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. Corporation is a Colorado corporation in good standing with the State of Colorado.

RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. The recitals and background to this Escrow Agreement are incorporated herein and, by this reference, made a part hereof as if fully set forth at length herein.

RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. D.1. MEGA is and has been a licensed insurance company domiciled in the State of Oklahoma. D.2. Mid-West is a licensed insurance company domiciled in the State of Texas. Mid-West was formerly domiciled in the State of Tennessee.

RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ filed this case on February 19, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Kentucky state law.