WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT ABOUT. A settlement has been proposed in a class action against Generac Power Systems, Inc. (“Generac”). The case concerns an Inspection Notice Letter that was sent to owners of certain Generac air cooled home standby generators in specific regions of the United States for units that were manufactured between 2008 - 2016. The Inspection Notice Letter offered inspections of the generators’ fuel plenums for a discounted $80 fee that would be refunded if a plenum had significant corrosion (the “Inspection Program”). The Plaintiffs claimed that Generac should not have had a fee associated with the inspection, and that doing so amounted to a breach of its express and implied warranties. Generac denies any liability and maintains that it did not violate any warranties. Generac has historically instructed and expected Authorized Service Dealers to examine fuel systems (including the fuel plenum) during any general maintenance or service visits. The parties subsequently settled the lawsuit in order to avoid the costs, uncertainty, and inconvenience of litigation. The Settlement does not include, or release, any claims for personal injury, property damage (other than damage to the Class Generators related to the plenum), or subrogation. 3. WHAT IS A CLASS ACTION? In a class action lawsuit, one or more people sue on behalf of other people who allegedly have similar claims. For purposes of this settlement, one court will resolve the issues alleged in the Lawsuit for all Settlement Class Members. 4. WHY IS THERE A SETTLEMENT? Generac denies that it has done anything wrong and admits no liability. The Court has not decided that the Plaintiffs or Generac should win the Lawsuit. Instead, both sides agreed to a Settlement Agreement. That way, they avoid the cost of a trial, and the Settlement Class Members will receive benefits now rather than years from now, if at all.
WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT ABOUT. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants improperly charged certification and retrieval fees for health care records requests made by patients and persons authorized in writing by the patient to receive those health care records.
WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT ABOUT. A lawsuit was brought by Plaintiffs against Defendant following fires that occurred at Defendant’s facility located at 00000 Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Rd., Crosby, Texas 77532, during Hurricane Xxxxxx in late August and early September 2017. Plaintiffs allege that the fires caused harm to persons and property. Defendant denies that there is any factual or legal basis for Plaintiffs’ allegations. Plaintiffs contend that the fires deposited dioxin compounds on properties surrounding Defendant’s Xxxxxx facility at a level that poses a risk to human health or the environment. Defendant contends that the fires did not result in any harm or risk of harm to persons or property. In the lawsuit, Defendant has asserted defenses to the claims raised by Plaintiffs on behalf of the Class. The Court has not determined whether Plaintiffs or Defendant is correct. This lawsuit is a class action. A class action is a lawsuit in which the claims and rights of many people are decided in a single court proceeding. One or more people—sometimes called “class representatives”—sue on behalf of people who may have similar claims. All of the people who may have similar claims form a “class” and are “class members.” A settlement in a class action—if approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate—resolves the claims for all class members.
WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT ABOUT. The lawsuit asserts that a part on your Civic was defectively designed, and that as a result the tires on some Civics wore out unevenly or prematurely. Honda denies that there was any defect on the Civics. There are no safety concerns for owners of these vehicles.
WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT ABOUT. The lawsuit or Action is known as Xxxx Xxxxxxx v. LifeLock, Inc., Case No 1-15-cv-276235, currently pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Xxxxx. Judge Xxxxx Xxxxxx is in charge of the Action. The person who sued is the Plaintiff or Class Representative and the company he sued, LIFELOCK, is the Defendant. The Action claims that the process by which LIFELOCK subscription plan members enrolled failed to disclose the automatically renewing nature of the membership as required by California’s Automatic Renewal Law (Business and Professions Code sections 17600, et seq.). Based upon this alleged statutory violation, the Class Representative also asserts claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.). LIFELOCK denies all allegations. The Court did not decide that there is any merit to the claims in the Action or that any recovery from LIFELOCK is appropriate. Instead, both sides agreed to a Settlement. That way, they avoid the costs and delay of further legal proceedings and the Class Members will get the benefits of the Settlement. The issuance of this Notice is NOT an expression of the Court’s opinion on the merits or lack of merits of any of the claims in the Action. LIFELOCK denies any wrongdoing and denies that the Class Representative’s claims can be adjudicated appropriately on a class-wide basis. This description of the Action is general and does not cover all of the issues and proceedings that have occurred. In order to see the complete file, you should visit the Clerk’s office at the Santa Xxxxx County Superior Court located at 000 Xxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxx Xxxx, Xxxxxxxxxx 00000. The Clerk will tell you how to obtain the file for inspection and copying at your own expense. You may also visit the e-filing website of the Santa Xxxxx County Superior Court, xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx/ and enter the case number, 1-15-CV-276235, for more information.
WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT ABOUT. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Xxxxx & Associates, LLC, Zen Life Holdings, Inc., Xxx Xxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, and Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxx (“Defendants”) violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., by sending unsolicited fax advertisements lacking compliant opt-out provisions prior to July 19, 2023. Defendants deny all liability and wrongdoing whatsoever. The Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims or Defendants’ defenses.
WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT ABOUT. Plaintiff alleges that Xxxxxx Healthcare, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Molina”) violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., by sending facsimile transmissions through a third-party entity, Southwest Medical Consulting, LLC, on or after April 12, 2013, concerning Defendant’s building of its provider networks. Molina denies all liability and wrongdoing whatsoever. The Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims or Defendant’s defenses.
WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT ABOUT. In this Litigation, the Plaintiffs alleged individual and class action claims against NIBCO asserting that the Covered Products are defective and prone to leak causing water damage. There are two class action lawsuits that are being settled. The term “
