The Defendants. Defendant Tom Schedler (“Schedler”) is sued in his official capacity as the Louisiana Secretary of State. Schedler is designated as the chief state election official in Louisiana and is responsible for the coordination of state responsibilities under Section 10 of the NVRA. 42 U.S.C. 1National Association for the Advancement of Colored People2Section 4 of the Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg‐2; Section 7 of the Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg‐5; Section 10 of the Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg‐8. § 1973gg‐8. Louisiana law provides that the Secretary of State shall “[c]oordinate the responsibilities of th[e] state under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (P.L. 103‐31) as required by 42 U.S.C. Section 1973gg‐8.” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18:18(A)(6). The Louisiana Secretary of State is generally responsible for prescribing uniform rules, regulations, forms, and instructions related to voter registration and voter education. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18:18(A)(2), (3), (8).Defendant Suzy Sonnier (“Sonnier”) is sued in her official capacity as the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services. DCFS is a mandatory voter registration agency under Louisiana law. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18:18(A)(1)(a). DCFS administers public assistance programs including, but not limited to, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”), formerly food stamps, and Family Independence Temporary Assistance (“FITAP”). La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 36:474(G); 46:231‐231.2.Defendant Bruce D. Greenstein (“Greenstein”) is sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. Like DCFS, DHH is a mandatory voter registration agency under Louisiana law. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18:18(A)(1)(a). DHH administers public assistance programs including Medicaid, the Woman, Infants and Children Program (“WIC”), and the Louisiana Children’s Health Insurance Program (“LaCHIP”). La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 36:251(B); 46:450.3; 46:976.
The Defendants falsely or misleadingly state that “the app uses your location only while you have the app open”? b.1) Did the Defendants violate of any of the agreed-upon terms and conditions of a binding contract entered into with Class Members? b.2) Did the Defendants, without authorization, intentionally or negligently invaded the private concerns of Class Members, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, and to which caused mental anguish or suffering?b.3) Did the Defendants use Class Members’ confidential information for a purpose other than that for which the information was disclosed to them without authorization? b.4) Did the Defendants, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of a product or for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, by any means whatever, knowingly or recklessly make a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect? b.5) Did the Defendants violate Class Members’ privacy rights gross negligently, intentionally, recklessly, or wantonly? b.6) Are any of the Defendants vicariously liable to Class Members through any act, omission, or fault of its affiliates, related entities, subsidiaries, mandataries, agents, contractors, representatives, partners, insurers, reinsurers, shareholders, employees, officers, directors, professionals, staff, predecessors, successors and assigns?
The Defendants. 11. Defendant Methode is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 7401 West Wilson Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60706-4548. Methode is a global manufacturer of component and subsystem devices. Methode designs, manufactures and markets devices employing electrical, electronic, wireless, sensing and optical technologies. Methode's components are found in the primary end markets of the automotive, communications, aerospace, rail and other transportation industries, as well as the consumer and industrial equipment markets.
The Defendants. 34] Because of the nature of their activities, the defendants state that they are companies under federal jurisdiction within the meaning of subsection 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867. They maintain that they are not subject to the Canadian Charter because the relationship they have with the plaintiffs is purely private. The same is true, they allege, with regard to the Quebec Charter, because of the doctrine the interjurisdictional immunity and, ultimately, because its application would interfere with the exercise of an activity falling within federal jurisdiction.  The defendants argue that their obligations under the Canada Labour Code (“C.L.C.”) and the Criminal Code (“Cr. C.”) concern the safety of workers at their workplace as well as others authorized to be in the terminals. They therefore vigorously defend the reasons for adopting the Policy in 2005, which, among other things, made hard hats mandatory for city truck drivers when they are outside their trucks. They contest the discrimination argument put forward by the plaintiffs. In the event that the Court applies either of the Charters, the defendants argue the lack of prima facie evidence of an unlawful distinction in respect of the Sikh truck drivers. They state, among other things, that:
The Defendants. Miranda waiver was valid. Unwarned questioning of the defendant prior to administering Miranda warnings does not necessarily violate the rule of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). In Oregon v. Elstad, 470U.S. 298, 318 (1985), the Supreme Court held that a Miranda waiver was valid, even though it had been preceded by unwarned questioning. Subsequently, the Supreme Court has identified five factors that should be considered in determining the validity of a Miranda waiver following unwarned questioning: (1) “the completeness and detail of the questions and answers in the first round of interrogation”; (2) “the overlapping content of the two statements”; (3) “the timing and setting” of the two respective interviews; (4) “the continuity of police personnel”; and (5) “the degree to which the interrogator’s questions treated the second round as continuous with the first.” Missouri v. Siebert, 542 U.S. 600, 615 (2004) (plurality opinion).In a concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy stated that when a “deliberate two-step strategy” is used, post-warning statements that are related to the substance of pre-warning statements must be excluded unless curative measures adopted before the post-warning statements were taken. Id. at 622. Justice Kennedy identified a “substantial break in time and circumstances” and “an additional warning that explains the likely inadmissibility of the pre-warning custodial statement” as curative steps. Id. Here, as will later be established at an evidentiary hearing, there wassufficient attenuation between the defendant’s unwarned and warned statements to render his Miranda waiver valid. Even if there were insufficient attenuation, the proper remedy would be suppression of the warned statement. See, e.g., United States v. Capers, 627 F.3d 470, 483 (2nd Cir. 2010) (suppressing warned statement that was not sufficiently attenuated from unwarned statement).
The Defendants. Symrise, an Aktiengesellschaft, or publicly listed company, organized under the laws of Germany, is headquartered in Holzminden, Germany. Symrise is active globally in three main business segments: (i) flavor; (ii) nutrition; and (iii) scent and care. In its 2018 fiscal year, Symrise had global sales of EUR 3.154 billion (or approximately $3.53 billion). Symrise’s nutrition segment, represented by its Diana division, which also operates in the United States, specializes in producing natural functional ingredients for food manufacturers and aquaculture.In October 2018, Diana Food, part of the Diana division within Symrise, opened the Banks County facility. The Banks County facility marked Symrise’s entrance into the U.S. market for the manufacture and sale of chicken-based food ingredients for food manufacturers, to compete with incumbent suppliers, such as IDF/ADF. Production at the Banks County facility began in 2019. Diana Food’s sales for chicken-based food ingredients manufactured at the Banks County facility continueto ramp up and Symrise expects, and has budgeted for, significant sales by year-end 2019. Moreover, Symrise envisions continuing to gain shares of the U.S. market thereafter.IDF Holdco, Inc. and ADF Holdco, Inc. are the ultimate parent entities of IDF and ADF. IDF and ADF are limited liability companies headquartered in Springfield, Missouri. IDF manufactures and sells chicken-based food ingredients. ADF owns 50% of Food Ingredient Technologies, LLC (“Fitco”) which also manufactures and sells chicken-based food ingredients. Although legally separate entities, IDF and ADF operate as an integrated business unit and collectively are the largest developers and manufacturers in the United States of chicken-based food ingredients for food manufacturers. The companies develop and manufacture chicken-based food ingredients at facilities in Monett, Missouri, and Anniston, Alabama. IDF/ADF’s 2018 annual total sales were approximately $266 million, of which approximately $177 million was attributable to the sale of chicken-based food ingredients.
The Defendants. WMI is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Houston, Texas. WMI provides collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services throughout the United States. In 2014, WMI had estimated total revenue of $14 billion. DDI is a Delaware corporation, with its headquarters in Kansas City, Kansas. DDI offers collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services in Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. In 2013 DDI had estimated total revenue of approximately $180 million.