LITIGATION BACKGROUND. 2 A. On January, 24, 2018, eight Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint in the 0 Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx 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.
LITIGATION BACKGROUND. A. Plaintiff Xxxxxxx commenced this Action by filing a Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial on July 11, 2019. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff Xxxxxxx and Plaintiff Xxxxxx 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 that certain of its Televisions with 60Hz native refresh rate panels as “120Hz CMI,” “120Hz Clear Motion Index,” and/or “120Hz CMI Effective Refresh Rate.” Based on these allegations, on April 24, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Action. The Action alleges violations of certain California and New Jersey consumer protection statutes and a claim for unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and restitution in amounts by which Defendant was allegedly unjustly enriched based on its sale of the Televisions.
LITIGATION BACKGROUND. A. Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, Defendant advertised that its Food Products were devoid of Genetically Modified Organisms (“GMO”). Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Food Products in Defendant’s restaurants. Plaintiffs allege that the Food Products have been falsely or misleadingly labeled or marketed as “non-GMO” because Defendant’s Food Products may have been sourced from livestock that consumed GMO animal feed. Based on these allegations, on April 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the Action. The Action alleges violations of deceptive and unfair trade practices statutes of California, Maryland, and New York in addition to claims for unjust enrichment, common law misrepresentation, and declaratory relief. The Action is based on Defendant’s advertising, marketing, and selling of Food Products nationwide. Plaintiffs claim entitlement to injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and restitution in amounts by which Defendant was allegedly unjustly enriched based on its nationwide marketing, distribution, and sale of Food Products.
LITIGATION BACKGROUND. A. Diamond produces and sells a variety of pet food products. The Products are marketed or labelled as “grain free” or with some similar designation claiming the absence of any grain. On August 15, 2019, Plaintiffs sent a letter to Diamond notifying it of their claim that one of the Products was not actually grain free, and of their intent to bring a suit for damages. Diamond investigated the claims and, by timely response to Plaintiffs’ letter, informed Plaintiffs that there was no factual basis for their claims. The Parties continued to engage in further discussions regarding Plaintiffs’ claims. Subsequently, even though Diamond’s investigations revealed that the Products did not contain grain, in mid-2020, Diamond redesigned the labeling for some, but not all, of the Products, adding language that states: “The facility in which this food is made also makes food that may contain other ingredients, such as grains. Trace amounts of these other ingredients may be present.” Plaintiffs acknowledge that the inclusion of this language sufficiently addresses their concerns about the labeling of the Products.
LITIGATION BACKGROUND. The United States x. Xxxxxxxxxx et al. case was filed by the United States on June 27, 1983, as a trespass action on behalf of the Pueblos of Jemez, Zia, and Santa Xxx alleging that non-Indian uses of water from the Jemez River stream system were infringing on the water rights of the Pueblos, which it alleged were prior and paramount to any non-Indian rights. The case then proceeded as a general stream adjudication of the water rights of all users in the Jemez River Basin in New Mexico, including the Pueblos of Jemez, Zia, and Santa Xxx. The water rights of the non-Pueblo claimants have been adjudicated. However, the case has a long history of litigation and negotiation regarding the water rights claims of the three Pueblos. The Agreement recognizes the water rights of the Pueblos of Jemez and Zia based on historic uses, as well as specified rights (1,200 acre feet per year for each Pueblo) to future uses of water within the Jemez River Basin. The Agreement also provides for alternative administration between the two Pueblos and non-Pueblo irrigators centered around a groundwater augmentation project intended to supplement surface water supply during periods of low flow. Construction and operation of this project will provide the Pueblos and non-Pueblo water users a more reliable supply of water. Legislation to ratify the settlement has been introduced in both the House and the Senate.
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 Xx. Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxxxx each filed putative class action lawsuits. On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx, 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. (Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx et. al. v.
LITIGATION BACKGROUND. A. Reckitt produces and sells Neuriva Products, supplements marketed to promote brain health. The labels and advertising of the Neuriva Products contain representations that the active ingredients are clinically proven to support brain health. However, since summer 2020, several actions have been filed challenging the truth of such representations and further alleging that Reckitt made other misrepresentations regarding the health or brain performance benefits of the Neuriva Products. On May 19, 2020, counsel on behalf of Xxxxxx Xxxxx served a demand letter relating to the representations (the “Xxxxx Letter”) challenging the clinically proven claims and alleging that the Neuriva Products “do not, in fact, have the effects on brain performance and cognition they are advertised to have.” On June 19, 2020, Plaintiff Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, individually and on behalf of a nationwide class, brought a suit entitled Xxxxxxxx, et al. v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, et al., No. 1:20-cv-00854 in the Eastern District of California (the “Xxxxxxxx Action”) again challenging the clinically proven representations and also claiming that the health claims Reckitt made regarding Neuriva Products are false.
LITIGATION BACKGROUND. A. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased food products for delivery through Defendant’s Chick-fil-A® One App and/or Website during the Class Period. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant’s representations regarding its delivery fees and menu prices for its delivery orders during the Class Period were false or misleading. Plaintiffs Xxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxx Xxxxxxxxx, and Xxxxxx Xxxxxx each filed putative class action lawsuits in state court in Georgia and in federal court in New York, New Jersey, Florida, and California respectively.
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 Xxxxx in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.
