Plaintiffs’ Claims. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s defenses are without merit. Neither this Agreement nor any documents referred to or contemplated herein, nor any action taken to carry out this Agreement is, may be construed as, or may be used as an admission, concession or indication by or against Plaintiff, Class Members, or Class Counsel as to the merits of any claims or defenses asserted, or lack thereof, in the Class Action. However, in the event that this Settlement is finally approved by the Court, none of Plaintiff, Class Members, or Class Counsel will oppose Defendant’s efforts to use this Agreement to prove that Plaintiff and Class Members have resolved and are forever barred from re-litigating the Released Claims.
Plaintiffs’ Claims. 2. On December 8, 2003, Plaintiff Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx and other plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in this Court captioned Xxxxxxx v.
Plaintiffs’ Claims. 1. On December 8, 2003, Plaintiff Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx and other plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in this Court currently captioned Glaberson v.
Plaintiffs’ Claims. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs assert three separate claims: (1) improper exclusion of qualified individuals from covered medical assistance under the Medicaid Act; (2) violations of Medicaid comparability; and (3) violations of reasonable promptness. Compl. ¶¶ 64-72; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 64-72. The claims all arose out of a coverage policy that Defendants applied to Kansas Medicaid enrollees seeking coverage of DAAs (“HCV Policy”). Plaintiffs alleged that the HCV Policy excluded care that was medically necessary, and that the exclusion was inappropriately imposed based on the cost of DAAs. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenged the HCV Policy’s exclusion of coverage for certain HCV-infected enrollees based on fibrosis scores.
Plaintiffs’ Claims. 1. This class action lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed on February 22, 2017, against the City of Milwaukee (“Milwaukee”), the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission (“FPC”), and in his official capacity Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, the Chief of the Milwaukee Police Department (“MPD”)1 (hereinafter referred to individually and collectively as “Defendants”) by named plaintiffs Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxx, and Xxxxxx Xxxxx (hereinafter referred to individually and collectively as “Plaintiffs”). 2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs related to stops and frisks by the Milwaukee Police Department (“MPD”) violate the United States Constitution by: (1) authorizing MPD officers to stop people without individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (2) authorizing MPD officers to frisk people without individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and (3) sustaining stops and frisks of 1Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint and Amended Class Action Complaint named as a defendant Xxxxxx Xxxxx in his official capacity as Chief of the MPD. Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ¶ 27 (May 24, 2017), (Docket #19) (“Am. Compl.”). Due to the retirement of Xxxxxx Xxxxx on February 16, 2018 and subsequent appointment of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx as Chief of the MPD, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx is automatically substituted for Xxxxxx Xxxxx as a defendant sued in his official capacity pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). 2Plaintiffs and Defendants are from time to time referred to hereinafter individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” Black and Latino people that involve racial and ethnic profiling, or are otherwise motivated by race and ethnicity, rather than reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Plaintiffs’ Claims. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s defenses are without merit. However, in the event that this Settlement is finally approved by the Court, Plaintiff, Class Members, and Class Counsel will not oppose Defendant’s efforts to use this Agreement to prove that Plaintiff and Class Members have resolved and are forever barred from re-litigating the Released Claims.
Plaintiffs’ Claims. On December 24, 2019, Plaintiff Xxxxx Xxxxxxx initiated this Lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles on behalf of herself and a class of similarly-situated individuals against Defendant Precision Toxicology, LLC. On behalf of the putative class, Plaintiff alleged causes of action for: (a) failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked including, but not limited to, those resulting from rounding, miscalculated regular rate, and off-the-clock work (Labor Code §§ 510, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198); (b) failure to provide timely and compliant duty-free meal periods and pay premiums owed thereon (Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512); (c) failure to provide timely and compliant duty-free rest breaks and pay premiums owed thereon (Labor Code § 226.7); (d) failure to reimburse all necessary business expenses incurred (Labor Code §§ 2800, 2802); (e) failure to maintain and furnish accurate itemized wage statements (Labor Code §§ 226, 1174(d)); (f) failure to timely pay wages during employment and all final wages owed upon separation (Labor Code §§ 201-203, 204); (g) engaging in unfair and unlawful business practices (Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.); and (h) violating California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Labor Code § 2699) (collectively, “Claims”). Defendant has denied liability, has denied the allegations in the operative Complaint, and has raised various defenses to these Claims. Defendant contends that it complied in good faith with California wage-and-hour laws and has dealt legally and fairly with Plaintiff and Class Members. Defendant further denies that, for any purpose other than settling this Lawsuit, these Claims are appropriate for class or representative treatment. Defendant wishes to settle this case, however, to avoid costly, disruptive, and time-consuming litigation and does not admit to any wrongdoing or liability. The Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiff’s Claims. By approving the Settlement and issuing this Notice, the Court is not suggesting which side would win or lose this case if it went to trial. However, to avoid additional expense, inconvenience, and risks of continued litigation, Defendant and Plaintiff have concluded that it is in their respective best interests and the interests of the Class Members to settle the Lawsuit on the terms summarized in this Notice. After Defendant provided extensive discovery and information to counsel for the Class Membe...
Plaintiffs’ Claims. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant’s defenses are without merit. Neither this Agreement nor any documents referred to or contemplated herein, nor any action taken to carry out this Agreement is, may be construed as, or may be used as an admission, concession, or indication by or against Plaintiffs, Class Members, or Class Counsel as to the merits of any claims or defenses asserted, or lack thereof, in the Action. However, if this Settlement is finally approved by the Court, none of Plaintiffs, Participating Class Members, Eligible Aggrieved Employees, or Class Counsel will oppose Defendant’s efforts to use this Agreement to prove that Plaintiffs, Participating Class Members, and Eligible Aggrieved Employees have resolved and are forever barred from re-litigating the Released Claims and PAGA Released Claims, respectively.
Plaintiffs’ Claims. Neither this Agreement nor any documents referred to or contemplated herein, nor any action taken to carry out this Agreement is, may be construed as, or may be used as an admission, concession, or indication by or against Plaintiff, Class Members, or Class Counsel as to the merits of any claims or defenses asserted, or lack thereof, in the Action. However, if this Settlement is finally approved by the Court, none of Plaintiff, Participating Class Members, or Class Counsel will oppose Defendants’ efforts to use this Agreement to prove that Plaintiff and Participating Class Members have resolved and are forever barred from re-litigating the Released Class Claims and/or Released PAGA Claims.
Plaintiffs’ Claims. Plaintiffs filed their putative class complaint against a set of Banner Defendants on November 20, 2015. Dkt. 1. On November 9, 2016, they filed an amended class complaint adding Xxxxxx as a defendant. Dkt. 118. Although the Amended Complaint contains five counts, only two are di- rected at Xxxxxx. Both allege that Xxxxxx breached its duty of prudence under 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a), by allowing the Plan: (1) to pay unreasonable fees to its recordkeeper, Fidelity (Count I); and (2) to maintain underperforming investment options, namely, the Fidelity Freedom Funds, and the Plan’s Level 3 designated investment options referred to internally by the Defendants as the “Mutual Fund Window” (Count II).
