DEFINITION OF THE CLASS i. The Parties hereby stipulate to certification of a Settlement Class as follows: All individuals who are or were housed at any DOC Prison at any point between January 11, 2015 through the Effective Date and who: (1) were identified as being entitled to special education services and reasonable educational accommodations, or (2) were not identified but had a verified IEP during or prior to their period of incarceration with DOC, or (3) were not identified but had been diagnosed with an educational disability and for whom IEP development began but did not conclude prior to their period of incarceration with the DOC, or (4) were under age 18 when they entered DOC custody, were born after January 11, 1993, and did not have a high school diploma when they entered DOC custody.
ii. Plaintiffs will move for the certification of the Settlement Class as part of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement. Defendants will not oppose certification of the Settlement Class.
iii. The Parties hereby stipulate to the following: As class representatives, Named Plaintiffs can adequately represent the interests of the class. Individual Named Plaintiffs’ release from custody would not interfere with their ability to serve as class representatives. Plaintiffs may replace class representatives from time to time as needed upon notice to Defendants and approval of the Court.
DEFINITION OF THE CLASS. You are deemed to be part of the Class and a participant in this Action if you fit into one or more of the class or subclass definitions below, unless you expressly exclude yourself from the Class in writing. (See answer to Question No. 8 below.) By order dated March 31, 2017, the Court certified this case to proceed on behalf of a class defined as follows: All participants of ERISA plans, as well as beneficiaries of those plans, who were invested directly or indirectly in any JPM Stable Value Fund that invested in the JPM Intermediate Bond Fund and/or the Intermediate Public Bond Fund between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010 and whose stable value fund investment performance underperformed the Hueler index or similar objective benchmark. Excluded from the Class are the jurists to whom this case is assigned, as well as their respective staffs; counsel who appear in this case, as well as their respective staffs, including experts they employ; the Defendants in this matter, as well as their officers and directors; any person, firm, trust, corporation, officer, director, or other individual or entity in which a Defendant has a controlling interest or that is related to or affiliated with any of the Defendants; and the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest, or assigns of any such excluded party. In addition, the Court certified three subclasses. The first certified subclass—the “SAIF Subclass”—is defined as follows: All participants of ERISA plans, as well as beneficiaries of those plans, who were invested directly or indirectly in the JPM Stable Asset Income Fund (“SAIF”) from between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010 and whose stable value fund investment underperformed the Hueler Index or similar objective benchmark. Excluded from the Class are the jurists to whom this case is assigned, as well as their respective staffs; counsel who appear in this case, as well as their respective staffs, including experts they employ; the Defendants in this matter, as well as their officers and directors; any person, firm, trust, corporation, officer, director, or other individual or entity in which a Defendant has a controlling interest or that is related to or affiliated with any of the Defendants; and the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest, or assigns of any such excluded party. The second certified subclass—the “ACSAF/XX Xxxxxx Stable Value Fund Subclass”— has a class period that begins ...
DEFINITION OF THE CLASS. On , the Court preliminarily certified this lawsuit to proceed as a class action for the purposes of the proposed settlement. Michaels has agreed to certification of the Class for purposes of settlement only, and it denies that class certification would be appropriate if this lawsuit were to go forward toward trial. The Class is defined as: All persons who purchased custom framing products and/or services from one of Defendant’s stores in Ohio between January 1, 2009 and October 7, 2011, during a week where Defendant was advertising or promoting a discount for custom framing products and/or services. In a class action, one or more persons are appointed to represent the interests of all persons with similar claims or defenses. In this case, the Court appointed Xx. Xxxxx to serve as the class representative. The Court also approved Plaintiff’s attorneys, the law firm of Xxxxxxx & Xxxxxxxxx Co., L.P.A., as Class Counsel to serve as attorneys for the Class. This Notice is being published solely for the purposes of: (i) informing you that this lawsuit is pending; (ii) informing you that the Court has certified the lawsuit to proceed as a class action for purposes of settlement; (iii) advising you that the parties have reached agreement on a proposed settlement, and explaining the terms of the proposed settlement and how you can make a claim; and (iv) advising you of your rights with respect to the proposed settlement. A settlement has been reached in this class action lawsuit. Michaels denies any wrongdoing or that it violated the law. The parties have settled the lawsuit, however, to avoid the costs and risks from continuing the lawsuit. Class Members who do not opt out of the settlement will be able to claim and receive a $32.50 cash-value certificate, which may be used at any Michaels retail store in Ohio. Class Members who do not opt out of the settlement (as described below) will relinquish their right to bring claims on their own behalf, including claims for monetary relief, and such Class Members will not be able to xxx Xxxxxxxx on the same or any related claims. The proposed settlement does not mean that any law was violated or that Michaels did anything wrong. Plaintiff and Class Counsel think the proposed settlement is fair and in the best interests of all Class Members.
