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 October 26, 2018, Plaintiff Xxxxxxx filed a Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint, on behalf of Impinj, against the Individual Defendants asserting violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment (the “Xxxxxxx Action”). On October 28, 2018, Plaintiff Xxxxx filed a Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint, on behalf of Impinj, against the Individual Defendants asserting violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment (the “Xxxxx Action”). On November 8, 2018, Plaintiffs de la Fuente and Xxxxxxx filed a Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint asserting breach of fiduciary duties, insider selling and misappropriation of information, unjust enrichment, and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a- 9 promulgated thereunder (the “De La Fuente Action”).1 On December 26, 2018, the parties in the Derivative Action filed a Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Consolidating Related Shareholder Derivative Actions and Establishing a 1 The Xxxxxxx Action, Xxxxx Action, and the De La Fuente Action are collectively referred to herein as the “Derivative Action.” Leadership Structure. On January 2, 2019, the Court granted the stipulation, which: (i) consolidated the Derivative Action; and (ii) appointed Fotouhi’s and Xxxxx’x counsel, The Xxxxx Law Firm, P.A. and The Xxxxx Law Firm, P.C. as Co-Lead Counsel and Xxxxxx LLP as Liaison Counsel. On January 25, 2019, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Staying Action, which the Court granted on January 28, 2019, and which stayed the Derivative Action until the resolution of a related securities class action, In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:18-cv-05704 pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (the “Securities Class Action”). On January 30, 2019, the Court administratively closed the Derivative Action.
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. This case arises from the alleged compromise of personally identifying information (“PII”) and/or protected health information (“PHI”) (collectively, “Private Information”) following a data security incident Defendant experienced around March 2023 (the “Data Incident”). Plaintiff and Class Members (as defined below) include current and former patients of Defendant whose Private Information was potentially impacted in the Data Incident. Following the Data Incident, Defendant sent notice to the individuals whose Private Information was potentially impacted in the Data Incident. In response, on July 13, 2023, Plaintiff Xxxxxxx filed a putative class action, captioned Xxxxxxx, individually and as next friend on behalf of M.C. (minor) v. TOC Enterprises, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00598 (M.D. Tenn.). On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff Xxxxxxx filed an amended complaint, adding Plaintiff Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx. On October 25, 2023, Plaintiffs amended their complaint, removing Plaintiff Xxxxxxx individually, and on behalf of her minor child (M.C.) as Plaintiffs, captioned Bandy v. TOC Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Tennessee Orthopaedic Clinics, a division of Tennessee Orthopaedic Alliance, P.A., No. 3:23-cv-00598 (M.D. Tenn.). In her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged individually and on behalf of a putative nationwide class that, as a result of the Data Incident, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered or will suffer numerous injuries, including (1) diminution in value of their Personal Information; (2) financial costs incurred mitigating the imminent risk of identity theft; (3) loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating the imminent risk of identity theft; (4) delay in receipt of tax refund monies; and (5) the cost of future identity theft monitoring for the Class. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the proposed nationwide class, asserted claims for (i) negligence; (2) negligence per se;
