DESCRIPTION OF THE LITIGATION. A. History of the Litigation
DESCRIPTION OF THE LITIGATION. Plaintiffs allege that, from approximately June 2012 to February 2015, JCPenney directed its Merchandise Assistants to work “off the clock” outside of their scheduled hours without paying them a minimum wage or one and a half times their regular rate of pay for time worked in excess of forty hours each week. Plaintiffs further allege that, around February 2, 2015, JCPenney began investigating the unpaid hours of its Merchandising Assistants. As a result of this investigation, JCPenney ultimately made payments of $289,278.59 to 53 Merchandise Assistants who reported unpaid hours. The Parties to the Litigation exchanged initial disclosures and written discovery, followed by some voluntary production of information to facilitate settlement negotiation. After extensive negotiations, information gathering, data review, document production, and analysis, the Parties resolved the wage and hour claims. JCPenney specifically and generally denies all of the wage and hour claims asserted in the Litigation, including all claims as to liability, damages, penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees or costs, expert fees, restitution, injunctive relief, and all other forms of relief, as well as all collective allegations. JCPenney makes no concession or admission of wrongdoing or liability of any kind whatsoever. JCPenney maintains that it fully compensated the Plaintiff Class based on timesheets they submitted. Upon learning of an allegation of under-reporting hours, JCPenney promptly investigated its Merchandise Assistants’ allegations and expanded that investigation to other Merchandise Assistants in the department. And, while disputing the legitimacy of some assertions, JCPenney nonetheless paid the Plaintiff Class for all alleged unreported hours. JCPenney further implemented new procedures and conducted training to reinforce accurate time-recording processes. Nonetheless, JCPenney has concluded that further defense of the wage and hour claims in the Litigation would be protracted and expensive, and that it is desirable that the wage and hour claims in the Litigation be fully and finally settled in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”). In reaching this conclusion, JCPenney has also taken into account the uncertainty and risks inherent in any litigation. JCPenney has, therefore, determined that it is desirable and beneficial for it to settle the wage and hour claims asserted in Litigation...
DESCRIPTION OF THE LITIGATION. In this lawsuit, the Plaintiff, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, alleges that current and former salaried MWD Field Specialist and MWD Field Engineers who worked for Schlumberger during the relevant statutory time period were misclassified as exempt from federal and certain state overtime and other wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff contends that Schlumberger improperly failed to pay Settlement Class Members overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek and seeks unpaid overtime, interest, and penalties on their behalf. Schlumberger denies the Named Plaintiff’s allegations and maintains that it properly classified Settlement Class Members as exempt employees under the FLSA and certain state laws, and properly compensated the Settlement Class Members; that Settlement Class Members were not entitled to overtime; and that Defendant complied with all applicable state and federal laws with respect to the compensation of Settlement Class Members. This Settlement is the result of good-faith, arm’s-length negotiations between the Named Plaintiff and Schlumberger, through their respective attorneys. Both sides agree that in light of the risks and expense associated with continued litigation, this Settlement is fair and appropriate under the circumstances, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. On [** INSERT DATE**], the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement. The Court will decide whether to give final approval to the proposed Settlement at a hearing scheduled for [** INSERT DATE**] (“Final Approval and Fairness Hearing”). The attorneys for the Class and Collective Action in the Litigation (“Class Counsel”) are: XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX LAW FIRM Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx 00 Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxx 0000 Xxxxxxx, Xxxxx 00000 Telephone: (000)000-0000 XXXXXXXX XXXXX, PLLC Xxxxxxx Xxxxx 0 Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxx 0000 Xxxxxxx, Xxxxx 00000 Telephone: (000)000-0000 XXXXXXXX & XXXXX Xxxx Xxxxx 0000 Xxxxxxxxxx Xxx. Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxxxx 00000 Telephone: (000)000-0000 The attorneys for Defendant are: KULLMAN LAW FIRM Xxx Xxxxx III Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx 0000 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Suite 1600 New Orleans, Louisiana 70163 Telephone: (000)000-0000
DESCRIPTION OF THE LITIGATION. 1. Plaintiffs commenced this class action on behalf of themselves and other owners of real property in Xxxxxxxxxxxx County, Pennsylvania, who in 2008 signed oil and gas leases with Xxx Energy for which pre-paid rental or bonus payments were not made. Plaintiffs’ class action complaint asserts that valid and binding oil and gas leases existed which Defendants breached. The complaint seeks both damages and declaratory relief.
