FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS Sample Clauses

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1. On July 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendants and ADP, LLC1 in the Circuit Court of Xxxx County alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. Plaintiff moved for leave to amend her Complaint to add Loews COH Operating Company, LLC as a defendant on April 5, 2019. Plaintiff’s motion was granted on April 12, 2019, and Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint in the Circuit Court of Xxxx County on April 12, 2019. On May 10, 2019, Defendant Loews COH Operating Company, LLC, filed a Notice of Removal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on May 24, 2019, and the motion was fully briefed on November 8, 2019. 2. In an effort to reach a resolution of this matter, Counsel for the Parties jointly moved to stay the Action pending mediation on December 5, 2019. On February 24, 2020, the Parties participated in a full-day mediation with Xxx. Xxxxxx Denlow (Ret.). Though the Action did not settle at mediation, Counsel for the Parties continued to engage in settlement negotiations with the help of Judge Denlow through the spring of 2020, ultimately reaching an agreement in principle on May 29, 2020. 3. Following arms-length negotiations, the Parties have negotiated a settlement in which the Parties agree to resolve all claims which relate to or arise out of Loews Chicago Hotel and Loews Chicago X’Xxxx Hotel in Illinois, and which relate in any way to information that is or could be protected under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq., or any other similar state, local, or federal law, regulation, ordinance, or common law. Defendants represent there are approximately 1,244 members of the Settlement Class, 804 of which are non- union members, and 422 of which are union members, which Defendants understand and agree is a material term of the settlement. 4. The Parties have agreed to settle the Action on the terms and conditions set forth herein in recognition that the outcome of the Action is uncertain and that achieving a final result through litigation would require substantial additional risk, discovery, time, and expense. 1 Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss ADP, LLC on January 8, 2020. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion on January 16, 2020. 5. Defendants denied and continue to deny all allegations of w...

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1. On October 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against Xxxxxxx House based on a cyberattack on Xxxxxxx House’s network in June 2021 (the “Incident”), alleging claims of negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment (the “Litigation”). 2. On December 22, 2021, Xxxxxxx House filed its Motion to Dismiss, which was then fully briefed by both Parties. On February 8, 2022, the Parties jointly moved to stay the case to allow the Parties to mediate. During the case management conference on February 9, 2022, Judge Xxxxxxxx X. Xxxxxx granted the Motion to stay the case, deferring ruling on the Motion and referred the case to mediation. 3. Following arms-length negotiations, the Parties negotiated a settlement with the assistance of Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxx, Esq. at a mediation on May 12, 2022 by which the Parties agree and hereby wish to resolve all matters pertaining to, arising from, or associated with the Litigation, including all claims Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members have or may have had against Xxxxxxx House and related persons and entities, as set forth herein. 4. The Parties have agreed to settle the Litigation on the terms and conditions set forth herein in recognition that the outcome of the Litigation is uncertain and that achieving a final result through litigation would require substantial additional risk, uncertainty, discovery, time, and expense for both of the Parties. 5. Xxxxxxx House denies all claims of wrongdoing or liability that Plaintiff, Settlement Class Members, or anyone else have asserted in this Litigation or may assert in the future. Despite Xxxxxxx House’s position that it is not liable for, and has good defenses to, the claims alleged in the Litigation, Xxxxxxx House desires to settle the Litigation, and thus avoid the expense, risk, exposure, inconvenience, uncertainty, and distraction of continued litigation of any action relating to the matters being fully settled and finally resolved and released in this Settlement Agreement. Neither this Settlement Agreement, nor any negotiation or act performed or document created in relation to the Settlement Agreement or negotiation or discussion thereof is, or may be deemed to be, or may be used as, an admission of, or evidence of, any wrongdoing or liability. 6. The Parties now enter into this Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff and Class Counsel have con...

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1. On January 24, 2019, Plaintiff Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx filed a class action lawsuit against Defendant and Swissport International, Ltd., alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS § 14/1, et seq. (“BIPA”). Only Defendant was served in the Litigation. 2. Defendant initially moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Prior to full briefing and resolution of Defendant’s motion, the Parties agreed to stay the Litigation to explore settlement. 3. To that end, in order to seek resolution of the Litigation, on January 30, 2020, the Parties participated in a formal, full-day mediation session with the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Denlow (Ret.) of JAMS in Chicago, Illinois. 4. Following arms-length negotiations, the Parties negotiated a settlement with the assistance of Judge Denlow by which the Parties agree to resolve all matters pertaining to, arising from, and associated with the Litigation, including all claims Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members have or may have had against Defendant and any Released Parties, as that term is defined herein. 5. The Parties have agreed to settle the Litigation on the terms and conditions set forth herein in recognition that the outcome of the Litigation is uncertain and that achieving a final result through litigation would require substantial additional risk, discovery, time and expense. 6. Defendant denies all charges of wrongdoing or liability of any kind whatsoever that Plaintiff or Settlement Class Members have asserted in this Litigation or may in the future assert. Despite Defendant’s belief that it is not liable for, and has good defenses to, the claims alleged in the Litigation, Defendant desires to settle the Litigation, and thus avoid the expense, risk, exposure, inconvenience, and distraction of continued litigation of any action or proceeding relating to the matters being fully settled and finally put to rest in this Settlement Agreement. Neither this Settlement Agreement, nor any negotiation or act performed or document created in relation to the Settlement Agreement or negotiation or discussion thereof is, or may be deemed to be, or may be used as, an admission of, or evidence of, any wrongdoing or liability. 7. Following arms-length negotiations, including mediation before an experienced mediator, the Parties now seek to enter into this Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff and Class Counsel have conducted an investigation into the facts and the law regarding the Litigation and have concluded tha...

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1. On October 11, 2022, the Action was filed against ESGW in the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Great Falls Division. 2. The Action relates to a data security incident impacting ESGW, that occurred between October 12, 2021 and November 11, 2021, which was publicly acknowledged by Defendant on September 16, 2022. The data security incident potentially affected certain personal information of at least 7,551 current and former ESGW patients, employees, and customers (the “Data Incident”). 3. ESGW denies (i) the allegations and all liability with respect to facts and claims alleged in the Action, (ii) that the class representative in the Action and the class she purports to represent have suffered any damage, and (iii) that the Action satisfies the requirements to be certified or tried as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23. Nonetheless, ESGW has concluded that further litigation would be protracted and expensive, and that it is desirable that the Action be fully and finally settled in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Settlement Agreement. Neither this Settlement Agreement nor any negotiation or act performed, or document created in relation to the Settlement Agreement or negotiation or discussion thereof, is or may be deemed to be or may be used as an admission of any wrongdoing or liability. 4. The Parties began negotiating settlement as early as March 2023. Class Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel engaged in multiple telephone and email correspondences. The Parties were engaged in an offer and counteroffer process which took months to complete. In anticipation of continued litigation and formal mediation, ESGW began to prepare initial discoveries related to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, potential defenses thereto, and class certification, and the Parties discussed their respective positions on the merits of the claims and class certification. 5. Following months of extensive arms-length negotiations, the Parties negotiated a settlement on August 30, 2023, by which the Parties agree and hereby wish to resolve all matters pertaining to, arising from, or associated with the Action, including all claims Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members have or may have had against ESGW. 6. In exchange for the mutual promises, agreements, releases, and other good and valuable consideration provided for in this Agreement, and without any admission or concession by either Party, the Parties agree ...

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1. Plaintiffs allege that, on December 14, 2022, Builders Mutual’s network was hacked (the “Data Incident”). Plaintiffs allege that this hacking exposed certain personally identifiable information (“PII”) as well as personal health information (“PHI”) of Builders Mutual’s stakeholders, customers, employees of policyholders, current and former employees, and claimants. Specifically, the following types of PII were allegedly exposed: names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical information, health insurance information, and worker’s compensation information provided in connection with employment. On September 29, 2023, Builders Mutual began notifying Plaintiffs and the putative Settlement Class about the Data Incident. 2. On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed an action against Builders Mutual in the Eastern District of North Carolina, titled Xxxxxx v. Builders Mutual Insurance Company et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-579-M. 3. On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff Xxxx Xxxxxxxx filed a class action complaint against Defendant arising out of the same Data Incident (Case No.5:23-cv-00597-BO) and on October 27, Plaintiff Xxxxx Xxxxxxx filed a class action complaint against Defendant arising out of the same Data Incident (Case No. 4:23-cv-00181-M). 4. Plaintiffs moved to consolidate their actions on November 7, 2023, which was granted by the Court. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Consolidated Complaint on January 16, 2024 alleging: Negligence, Negligence Per Se, Breach of Implied Contract, Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, Unjust Enrichment, and Violation of the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. 5. On April 29, 2024, counsel for the Parties mediated this matter before retired Federal Magistrate Judge Xxxxxx Xxxxxx of JAMS. The mediation resulted in a proposed agreement including certain material terms, which are memorialized in this Agreement. 6. The Parties have agreed to settle the Litigation on the terms and conditions set forth herein in recognition that the outcome of the Litigation is uncertain and that achieving a final result through litigation would require substantial additional risk, uncertainty, discovery, time, and expense for the Parties. 7. Builders Mutual denies all allegations of wrongdoing or liability that Plaintiffs, Settlement Class Members, or anyone else have asserted in this ...

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1. Plaintiffs allege that in May 2021, IWP discovered unauthorized access to certain email accounts (the “Data Incident”), beginning in January 2021. Plaintiffs alleged that the Data Incident resulted in the potential exposure of certain personally identifiable information (“PII”) and personal health information (“PHI”) of IWP’s current and former customers. Specifically, the following types of PII were allegedly exposed: name, address, date of birth, email address, Social Security number, driver’s license, payment card information, financial account information, patient identification number, medical record number, treating or referring physician, treatment information, prescription information, health insurance information, and Medicare or Medicaid number. In February 2022, IWP began notifying Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class about the Data Incident. 2. On May 24, 2022, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed the Litigation, alleging the following claims: negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty. 3. Following full briefing, the Court granted IWP’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed in part and remanded. 4. After additional motion to dismiss briefing, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs’ negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims could proceed. 5. On March 5, 2024, after a period of informal discovery and mutual exchange of information, the Parties engaged in a private mediation with Judge Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx (Xxx.) from JAMS, an experienced mediator. Throughout their mediation session, the Parties engaged in an extensive evaluation and discussion of the relevant facts and law, and the Parties carefully considered the risk and uncertainties of continued litigation and all other factors bearing on the merits of settlement. Although the mediation did not result in a settlement, the parties continued their negotiations and, in the following weeks, succeeded in reaching agreement on the principal terms of a settlement—subject to final mutual agreement on all the necessary documentation. 6. The Parties have agreed to settle the Litigation on the terms and conditions set forth herein in recognition that the outcome of the Litigation is uncertain and that achieving a final result through litigation would require substantial additional risk, uncertainty, discovery, t...

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. On February 13, 2009, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx and Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx filed a putative collective action lawsuit against Defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), seeking to represent a collective group consisting of all bank tellers employed by Defendants in the United States. (D.Kan. Case No. 09-2073, Doc. 1).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1. On November 17, 2017, plaintiff Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx filed a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division against Defendant alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. (“BIPA”). The case was assigned to the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxx X. Cohen, Case No. 2017-CH-15328. 2. On December 18, 2017, Defendant removed the case to the Northern District of Illinois. 3. After several amendments to the complaint, the case was partially remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook County on October 29, 2021. 4. On January 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County against Defendant alleging violations under 740 ILCS 14/15(a) (“Section 15(a)”). 5. On March 22, 2022, the remaining claims pending in federal court were dismissed. 6. On April 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County against Defendant alleging violations under Section 15(a), 740 ILCS 14/15(b) (“Section 15(b)”), and 740 ILCS 14/15(d) (“Section 15(d)”) of BIPA. 7. On June 3, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint. On August 19, 2022, following full briefing, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 8. On August 24, 2022, the Court entered an Order directing the Parties to proceed with written discovery. 9. On September 26, 2022, Defendant filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses. 10. During discovery, the Parties agreed to attempt to resolve the Litigation through participation in a full-day mediation session overseen by the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx X. Schenkier (Ret.) of JAMS. 11. On June 12, 2023, the Parties engaged in a full-day, arm’s-length mediation session with Judge Xxxxxxxxx. With the assistance of Judge Xxxxxxxxx, the Parties reached a settlement to resolve all matters pertaining to, arising from, and associated with the Litigation, including all claims Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members have or may have had against Defendant and any Released Parties, as those terms are defined in this Agreement. 12. Defendant denies all allegations and claims of wrongdoing or liability of any kind whatsoever that Plaintiff or Settlement Class Members have asserted in this Litigation or may in the future assert. Despite Xxxxxxxxx’s belief that it is not liable for, and has good defenses to, the claims alleged in the Litigation, Defendant desires to settle the Litigation, and th...

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1. Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Complaint (the “Complaint”) against Horizon Actuarial on July 13, 2022, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Complaint alleged seventeen (17) claims, including: negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, invasion of privacy, violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, violation of California’s Customer Records Act, violation of the unlawful and unfair prong of California’s Unfair Competition Law, violation of Idaho’s Consumer Protection Act, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, violation of Louisiana’s Database Security Breach Notification Law, violation of Louisiana’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, violation of Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violation of North Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, violations of Oregon’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, and violations of O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11. 2. The Complaint alleged that in November of 2021, Horizon Actuarial experienced a data security incident in which unauthorized third parties gained access to its file server. Following discovery of this data security incident, Horizon Actuarial began investigating the scope and cause of the incident and determined that files containing Plaintiffs’ and Settlement Class Members’ personally identifiable information (“PII”), including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, benefit plan enrollment data, and/or dates of birth, may have been impacted. Horizon Actuarial began the process of notifying the individuals that may have been impacted of this data security incident on January 13, 2022 and continued notifying potentially impacted individuals through June 2022. 3. The Parties conducted informal arms-length negations over the course of several months until the Court formally stayed this case on February 24, 2023, pending mediation. The Court extended this stay until May 25, 2023, while negotiations continued. Following the extensive mediation and arms-length negotiation in this case from September 2022 through July 2023, the Parties reached a settlement by which the Parties agree and hereby wish to resolve all matters pertaining to, arising from, or associated in any way with the Litigation, including all claims Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members have, had, or may have against Horizon Actuarial and persons and entities related to the D...

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RECITALS. 1. In 2015, Midland filed separate Complaints against Xxxxx and Xxxxxxx, alleging that they used credit cards issued by Citibank, N.A., and failed to make their agreed monthly payments. Midland purchased Xxxxx’x alleged debt from Citibank on April 23, 2014, and purchased Xxxxxxx’x alleged debt from Citibank on October 14, 2014. 2. Midland attached an affidavit which stated that Midland “is the current owner of . . . the obligation sued upon, and was assigned all rights, title and interest to [Xxxxx’x] CITIBANK, N.A. account.” Midland also attached an Account Statement that was allegedly mailed to Xxxxx, which stated that “This Account is issued by Citibank, N.A.,” and showed an Account Number ending in “2509.” (Id.) Finally, Midland attached a Xxxx of Sale and Assignment, showing the date of assignment. (Xxxx of Sale, attached to Xxxxx Compl.) The Xxxx of Sale and Assignment stated that, “[f]or value received,” Citibank “does hereby transfer, sell, assign, convey, grant, bargain, set over, and deliver to [Midland], and to [Midland’s] successors and assigns, the Accounts described in Exhibit 1 and the electronic file.” 3. Midland attached an affidavit which stated that Midland “is the current owner of, and/or successor to, the obligation sued upon, and was assigned all the rights, title and interest to [Xxxxxxx’x] CITIBANK, N.A. account[.]” Midland also attached an Account Statement that was allegedly mailed to Xxxxxxx. The Account Statement stated that “This Account is issued by Citibank, N.A.,” and showed an Account Number ending in “5931.” (Id.) Finally, Midland attached a Xxxx of Sale and Assignment, showing an October 14, 2014 date of assignment. The Xxxx of Sale and Assignment stated that, “[f]or value received,” Citibank “does hereby transfer, sell, assign, convey, grant, bargain, set over, and deliver to [Midland], and to [Midland’s] successors and assigns, the Accounts described in Exhibit 1 and the electronic file.” 4. Xxxxx and Xxxxxxx each filed putative class action counterclaims, naming Midland Funding, LLC as a Counter-Defendant, which alleged that Midland failed to attach proof showing that Counterclaimants’ debt was assigned to Midland by Citibank. Counterclaimants specifically alleged, that “Midland made a false statement to [Counterclaimants] by claiming that it owned the debt resulting from the credit card agreement or line of credit agreement, when in fact, it had no legal right to collect the debt.” (Id. ¶ 35.) Stemming from these alle...