Procedural Background. 8. The authorization to develop amendments to UN GTR No.6 (Safety glazing) was adopted by the Executive Committee (AC.3) of the 1998 Agreement at its March 2015 session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1114, para. 115). It is based on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2015/42. It endorsed the proposed action plan to establish an Informal Working Group (IWG) on PSG.
Procedural Background. 4. The disputing Parties are the United States and Canada (together, the “Parties”). The United Mexican States (“Mexico”) participated as a third Party.
Procedural Background. On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff sent a pre-suit demand letter to Northwest’s Board, which at the time was composed of the Individual Defendants, Xxxxx X. Xxxx, and non-party Xxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxx. On November 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint in the Action on behalf of Northwest in this Court. Plaintiff asserted claims against the Individual Defendants and former Northwest director Xxxxx X. Xxxx for alleged breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment, and also asserted claims against the Toucan Entities, Cognate, and Defendant Powers for alleged breach of fiduciary duty as controlling shareholders and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff additionally asserted claims against the Toucan Entities and Cognate for alleged aiding and abetting. The Defendants accepted service of process, with the exception of Xx. Xxxx, whom Plaintiff did not serve. On December 21, 2016, the Defendants filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer or Responsive Pleading, which the Court granted on January 3, 2017. On February 13, 2017, the Individual Defendants, the Toucan Entities, and Cognate, respectively, filed separate motions to dismiss the Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint. On March 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Verified Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint in the Action. On March 10, 2017, the Settling Parties filed a Joint Motion to Extend Time Requirements so that Defendants could extend time for briefing a response to the Verified Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint, which was granted by the Court on March 17, 2017. On April 11, 2017, Plaintiff sent interrogatories and requests for production of documents to Defendants, and filed a Notice of Service of Discovery Materials with the Court. On April 17, 2017, the Individual Defendants, the Toucan Entities, and Cognate, respectively, filed separate motions to dismiss the Verified Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint. On April 21, 2017, the Defendants filed Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Dispositive Motions, moving to stay all discovery until the motions to dismiss were decided. Following Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the discovery requests that were the subject of Defendants’ April 21, 2017 Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Dispositive Motions, on April 28, 2017, Defendants filed a Line Withdrawing Motion to Stay Discovery, requesting that their motion be withdrawn without p...
Procedural Background. We have outlined the facts of this case in numerous previous orders. See, e.g., Docket No. 136 (“Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment”); Docket No. 294 (“Order on Post- Trial Claims”). We therefore present here only a brief introduction to the litigation’s current status.
Procedural Background. 18 The Burleys filed the Complaint on June 16, 2016 and the First Amended Complaint on 19 June 17, 2016. ECF No. 1, 4. The Burleys filed an ex parte application for an emergency stay of 20 the 2015 Decision on July 1, 2016, which the Court denied without prejudice to the refiling of a 21 properly noticed motion. ECF No. 8, 9. On July 8, 2016, the Xxxxxxx filed a noticed motion for
Procedural Background. 1. In or around April 2016, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized pretrial proceedings for certain putative class action lawsuits filed against VIZIO in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as part of a multidistrict litigation captioned In re VIZIO, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, No. 8:16-ml-02693-JLS (KESx) (C.D. Cal.), before the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx X. Staton.
Procedural Background. 2. The Arbitrator issued its first award to the parties on 1 August 2005 and notified the award to the General Council later that same day.2 The mandate of the Arbitrator in the first arbitration was:
Procedural Background. 1. On April 14, 2023, the Tribunal held the First Session of the Tribunal with the disputing parties (“
Procedural Background. This case involves an agreement or failure to reach agreement regarding non- resident attendance in Bowling Green Independent School District by students residing in the Warren County School District. KRS 157.350(4)(a) provides that “[i]f an agreement [concerning nonresident students] cannot be reached, either board may appeal to the commissioner for settlement of the dispute.” An important issue in this case is the effect of a 2001 agreement signed by the superintendents of both school districts. This agreement set a base number as of 2001 for non-residents from Warren County and included a formula for growth percentage increases each year based upon Warren County’s growth in student population. Historically, for many years thereafter, as will be found in the recommended findings below, the two Boards approved non-resident agreements that calculated the number of non-residents using the formula from the 2001 agreement. Beginning in 2008-2009, Warren County stopped agreeing to the growth percentage but each year would agree that 850 Warren County non-residents (the number applicable from the 2007-2008 calculation) could attend Bowling Green. This number included children of school employees residing in Warren County, who no longer are counted in non-resident calculations due to a change in KRS 157.350. Regarding the numbers of students at issue for 2013-2014, there were about 950 Warren County non-residents attending Bowling Green in 2012-2013, but this included about 100 children of employees (who no longer are counted due to a change in the law) and 100 non-contract Warren County non-residents being educated without the benefit of SEEK money at the choice of Bowling Green. Excluding the non-contract students and children of school employees from the calculations, if prior year agreements were repeated the number of Warren County residents in the upcoming school year would be 750. Bowling Green tendered a proposed annual agreement for 2013-2014 that, as in prior years proposed the traditional 850 minimum (but that parties later understood would be reduced by the 100 children of school employees) plus a growth percentage (discussed elsewhere hereinbelow). Had Warren County acted as it had during every year since 2008-2009, it would have crossed out the growth percentage, approved the 850, and that would have been the parties’ agreement. Instead, Warren County approved only 664 students from Warren County to attend Bowling, deducting from the 750 number 86 ...
Procedural Background. The case arises from the alleged compromise of personal identifying information (“PII”) and protected health information (“PHI”) (collectively “Private Information”) as a result of a ransomware attack Defendant experienced on or around May 2021 (the “Data Incident”). Plaintiffs and Class Members (as defined below) include individuals whose Private Information may have been accessed during the Data Incident. In response to the Data Incident, Defendant sent a Notice Letter (“Notice Letter”) to each potentially impacted individual providing a description of the type of Private Information involved. The potentially accessed information may have included: full names, driver’s license or state ID number, passport number, date of birth, medical diagnosis/treatment information, financial account information and/or Social Security Number. In response, class actions were filed in two jurisdictions: Xxxxxxx x. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, No. 23-cv-01442 (E.D. Pa.) (Filed Apr. 14, 2023) and Xxxxxxx x. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Case ID 230401942 (Phila. C.P.) (Filed Apr. 19, 2023). In their CAC, filed July 28, 2023, Plaintiffs, collectively, alleged individually and on behalf of a nationwide Class that, as a direct result of the Data Incident, Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered numerous injuries and would likely suffer additional harm into the future. Plaintiffs alleged that Class Members suffered the following categories of xxxxx: (a) loss of privacy; (b) financial costs associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from actual or potential future identity theft; (c) loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating actual and potential future identity theft(d) anxiety, emotional distress, and other economic and non-economic losses; (e) diminution of value of their PII and PHI; and (f) statutory damages. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of other members of the proposed nationwide class, collectively asserted claims for (i) negligence and negligence per se; (ii) Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §§ 201-1, et seq.; (iii) breach of fiduciary duty/confidences; and (iv) declaratory relief.
