LITIGATION BACKGROUND. A. Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, Defendant advertised that its Food Products were devoid of Genetically Modified Organisms (“GMO”). Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Food Products in Defendant’s restaurants. Plaintiffs allege that the Food Products have been falsely or misleadingly labeled or marketed as “non-GMO” because Defendant’s Food Products may have been sourced from livestock that consumed GMO animal feed. Based on these allegations, on April 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the Action. The Action alleges violations of deceptive and unfair trade practices statutes of California, Maryland, and New York in addition to claims for unjust enrichment, common law misrepresentation, and declaratory relief. The Action is based on Defendant’s advertising, marketing, and selling of Food Products nationwide. Plaintiffs claim entitlement to injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and restitution in amounts by which Defendant was allegedly unjustly enriched based on its nationwide marketing, distribution, and sale of Food Products.
B. Defendant expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind associated with the claims alleged in the Action, and further contends that, for any purpose other than Settlement, this Action is not appropriate for class treatment. Defendant does not admit or concede any actual or potential fault, wrongdoing, or liability against it in the Action or any other actions. Defendant maintained during the entire pendency of the Action, and continues to maintain, that the challenged labeling and marketing claims are, in fact, true, are substantiated through science, and are therefore not deceptive or misleading as a matter of law.
C. The Parties engaged in vigorous litigation over a three year period relating to the facts and legal issues in the Action. The Parties exchanged voluminous discovery including hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, many depositions, expert discovery, and third party discovery and document production. As a result of this lengthy and contentious litigation, Class Counsel was able to review thoroughly the claims of the Settlement Class Members and Defendant’s policies, practices and procedures as they relate to the marketing and sale of the Food Products.
D. The Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss this Action on November 4, 2016. (Dkt. No.
LITIGATION BACKGROUND. A. Plaintiff Xxxxxxx commenced this Action by filing a Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial on July 11, 2019. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff Xxxxxxx and Plaintiff Xxxxxx filed an Amended Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial on September 11, 2019. ECF No.
LITIGATION BACKGROUND.
1. On April 20, 2015, plaintiff Xxxxxxx Xxxxx and others, filed the Action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated class members whose Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were allegedly violated by the City and its CPD officers. The complaint filed in the Action has been amended from time to time.
2. The Action originally was assigned to the Xxxxxxxxx Xxx X. St. Eve and subsequently was transferred to the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx X. Wood. The Action is currently pending before the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx X. Wood and Magistrate Judge Xxxxxxx X. XxXxxxx.
3. The Complaint alleges class claims that Defendants have maintained a policy or custom of unconstitutional stops of individuals by CPD officers, without reasonable articulable suspicion in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the principles set forth in Xxxxx x. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The Complaint further alleges additional class claims that many of these alleged stops violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition to the class claims, the Individual Plaintiffs bring individual federal and state law claims stemming from their individual encounters with CPD officers. Plaintiffs contend that some of these alleged unconstitutional encounters included investigatory stops conducted during the enforcement of the Loitering Ordinances.
4. On June 27, 2017, the Defendants filed their respective answers to the Complaint, denying any and all liability and the material allegations of Plaintiffs' claims.
5. On December 10, 2015, the Court entered a discovery schedule for the Action. The Parties then commenced class, merits, and damages discovery both as to the Individual Plaintiffs and class issues.
6. The Parties have exchanged documents both informally and formally, and have conducted extensive written and oral discovery. During the course of the Action, the City produced to Plaintiffs tens of thousands of pages of documents, including the Contact Card and Investigatory Stop Report databases and other data. The City took the depositions of the four took over forty-five (45) additional depositions of various parties, third-parties and expert witnesses.
7. On November 20, 2017, the Settlement Class Representatives filed Plaintiffs’ Motion For Rule 23(b)(3)
LITIGATION BACKGROUND. A. Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, Defendant deceptively advertised discounts of its products, including Sitewide Discounts that purported to apply sitewide (except for a certain number of excluded products) on the Hot Topic Website. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx filed suit on March 15, 2023, in the Central District of California. Plaintiff Xxxxxx Xxxx joined that suit on April 5, 2023. And Plaintiff Xxxxx Xxxxxxx filed a suit in the District of Oregon on August 25, 2023. Plaintiffs allege violations of certain California and Oregon consumer protection statutes, and bring claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and restitution in amounts by which Defendant was allegedly unjustly enriched based on its product sales.
B. Defendant expressly denies any deceptive advertising and further denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind or that Plaintiffs or any putative Class member has been damaged in any amount or at all in connection with the claims alleged in the Action, and further contends that, for any purpose other than Settlement, this Action is not appropriate for class treatment. Defendant does not admit or concede any actual or potential fault, wrongdoing, or liability against it in the Actions or any other actions. Defendant maintained during the entire pendency of the Actions, and continues to maintain, that Plaintiffs misrepresent Defendant’s advertising practices, which are not deceptive or misleading as a matter of law.
C. In the Xxxxx case, on July 10, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint in its entirety, challenging each of Plaintiffs’ claims on a variety of grounds. Defendant also filed a request for judicial notice, asking the Court to take notice of multiple documents that Defendant argued were relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and the motion to dismiss. The Parties extensively briefed the issues raised by Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court issued an order on the motion to dismiss on November 16, 2023, granting Defendant’s DocuSign Envelope ID: 22A46851-61DB-445F-A46C-D3152294B406 motion and giving Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. In response, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 12, 2023.
D. After briefing the motion to dismiss, the Parties began discussing settlement of both the California and Oregon cases, and engaged in negotiati...
LITIGATION BACKGROUND. 45. On or about June 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed with the LWDA a PAGA notice letter which stated that Plaintiff intended to seek civil penalties against GDIT for various violations of the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders. On July 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint against GDIT in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On September 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Within 5 days of execution of this Settlement Agreement, the Parties will request leave from the Court for Plaintiff to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit B. The proposed Second Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) asserts class and representative action claims under California law for (1) failure to pay overtime wages, (2) failure to timely pay wages at separation, (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, (4) failure to provide all meal/rest premium wages, (5) unfair business practices, and (6) PAGA civil penalties.
46. GDIT denies Plaintiff’s claims, and asserts that GDIT has complied with all applicable labor laws. Consequently, GDIT does not believe that any liability to Plaintiff, the State of California or the LWDA, or to any other individual whom Plaintiff seeks to represent exists, or that Plaintiff, the State of California or the LWDA, or any other any other individual whom Plaintiff seeks to represent are entitled to any recovery in the Action.
47. On October 2, 2020, the Parties participated in a mediation with experienced mediator Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx, Esq. At the mediation, the Parties accepted a mediator’s proposal as to certain material terms of the Settlement, including the Maximum Settlement Amount. The terms of the settlement are now set forth in complete and final form in this Settlement.
48. Neither this Settlement, nor any final judgment pursuant to this Settlement, will constitute an admission of any form of wrongdoing or liability on the part of GDIT or the accuracy of any allegation raised in the Action. This Settlement is entered into in compromise of disputed claims. Plaintiff and GDIT intend, by their actions pursuant to this Settlement, merely to avoid the expense, delay, uncertainty, and burden of litigation. This Settlement and any related court documents or orders may not be cited or otherwise admitted as evidence of liability. There has been no final determination by any Court as to the merits of the Action.
49. It is th...
LITIGATION BACKGROUND. A. Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, Defendant deceptively advertised various discounts of its products on its websites, Xxxxxx.xxx, XxxxXxxxxx.xxx, and XxxxxxxxXxxxxx.xxx. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx filed suit on January 26, 2023, and Plaintiff Xxxxxx Xxx filed suit on August 9, 2023. Plaintiffs allege violations of certain Washington and California consumer protection statutes, and bring claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and restitution in amounts by which Defendant was allegedly unjustly enriched based on its product sales.
B. Defendant expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind or that Plaintiffs or any putative class member has been damaged in any amount or at all in connection with the claims alleged in the Action, and further contends that, for any purpose other than Settlement, this Action is not appropriate for class treatment. Defendant does not admit or concede any actual or potential fault, wrongdoing, or liability against it in the Action or any other actions. Defendant maintained during the entire pendency of the Action, and continues to maintain, that the challenged advertising practices are not deceptive or misleading as a matter of law.
C. In the California case, the Parties met and conferred regarding a potential motion to dismiss and reached an agreement regarding narrowing the claims to avoid motion practice. The Parties exchanged briefs and participated in an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference before Magistrate Judge Xxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx. The Parties also participated in an Initial Scheduling Conference. The Parties then proceeded to exchange discovery, with both sides serving initial disclosures and Plaintiff preparing and serving extensive requests for production and interrogatories. The Parties also exchanged discovery letters and met and several times in connection with Plaintiff’s discovery requests. The Parties ultimately reached an agreement on discovery exchange in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s procedures for resolving discovery disputes. Plaintiff also engaged two experts (a liability expert and a damages expert) and began designing a liability analysis and a conjoint survey in anticipation of class certification expert
LITIGATION BACKGROUND. 2 A. On January, 24, 2018, eight Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint in the 3 United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants 4 employed a corporate policy and/or practice to provide Guest Information to agents of 5 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and/or other Federal Immigration 6 Authorities. Plaintiffs challenge Defendants’ alleged policy and/or practice as 7 unauthorized disclosures of private information and as discriminatory, unconstitutional, a 8 violation of state laws protecting consumers, and a violation of Defendants’ privacy 9 policy.
10 B. On May 8, 2018, Defendants filed an answer and defenses to the class 11 action complaint and denied any wrongdoing or violation of the law.
12 C. On June 15, 2018, the Parties engaged in a day-long mediation before 13 Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx, Esq., a professional mediator. The mediation resulted in a tentative 14 settlement.
15 D. On July 6, 2018, the Parties filed a joint certification with the Court that 16 indicated that the Parties agreed to a tentative settlement that would resolve the 17 Plaintiffs’, Class Members’, and Injunctive Relief Class Members’ claims against 18 Defendants.
19 E. On November 2, 2018, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary 20 Approval of Class Action Settlement (the “Joint Motion”) with the Court.
21 F. On January 29, 2019, the Parties appeared before the Court for a hearing on 22 the Joint Motion, at which time the Court expressed certain questions and concerns, and 23 allowed the Parties an additional period of time to address those questions and concerns 24 in a new motion to be filed in support of the settlement agreement.
25 G. On April 3, 2019, the Parties engaged in an additional day-long mediation 26 before Xx. Xxxxxxxxx, which resulted in certain agreed upon changes to the complaint 27 and settlement.
1 H. On June 5, 2019, Plaintiffs filed, with Defendants’ consent, an Amended 2 Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (the “Amended 3 Complaint”).
LITIGATION BACKGROUND. A. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased food products for delivery through Defendant’s App and Website during the Class Period. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant’s representations regarding its delivery fees, service fees, and menu prices on its delivery orders during the Class Period were false or misleading. Plaintiffs Xx. Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxxxx each filed putative class action lawsuits. On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx, a resident of the State of California and a nonmember of Chipotle’s customer loyalty program, filed his action on behalf of all California consumers who purchased food for delivery from Chipotle beginning on or about May 2020 and alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. (Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx et. al.
LITIGATION BACKGROUND. Plaintiffs filed this action for alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Tennessee Human Rights Act, and Tennessee’s “Whistle-blowing” statute, as codified at Tenn. Code Xxx. § 50-1-304. Plaintiffs asserted that a class of African-American and Hispanic individuals who applied for employment between January 1, 2002, to the present at Defendants’ facility in Lebanon, Tennessee, but who were not hired, were discriminated against due to their race or national origin. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class encompassing such individuals, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs further sought to certify pursuant to that rule a class encompassing “all former, current, and future Hispanic and African-American employees, temporary or permanent, and job applicants who were either subjected to a discriminatory and racially and ethnically hostile work environment or were denied employment because of their race or national origin,” and further encompassing individuals who were discriminated against with regards to promotions or salary increases. On September 8, 2005, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, certifying a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2). (See Docket No. 46). On January 31, 2006, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Defendants’ petition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), vacating the District Court’s order granting class certification and remanding the action to the District Court for further consideration of whether the putative class was maintainable in light of Xxxx v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction, 423 F.3d 639 (6th Cir. 2006).. The Parties have agreed to a settlement of this action in its entirety, including without limitation each of the Plaintiffs’ individual claims, and the claims of the putative class sought to be certified by the Plaintiffs, including a putative class encompassing all African-American and Hispanic individuals who applied to be employed at Defendants’ Lebanon, Tennessee, facility from January 1, 2002, through the present but who were not hired. As indicated by the signature of the Class counsel, the signature of the Individual Plaintiffs, the signature of Class Representative Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, and the signature of counsel for Defendants at the end of this document, Named Plaintiffs and Defendants have consented to the entry of this decree on behalf of the Parties and the members of the Settlement Class.
LITIGATION BACKGROUND. A. Diamond produces and sells a variety of pet food products. The Products are marketed or labelled as “grain free” or with some similar designation claiming the absence of any grain. On August 15, 2019, Plaintiffs sent a letter to Diamond notifying it of their claim that one of the Products was not actually grain free, and of their intent to bring a suit for damages. Diamond investigated the claims and, by timely response to Plaintiffs’ letter, informed Plaintiffs that there was no factual basis for their claims. The Parties continued to engage in further discussions regarding Plaintiffs’ claims. Subsequently, even though Diamond’s investigations revealed that the Products did not contain grain, in mid-2020, Diamond redesigned the labeling for some, but not all, of the Products, adding language that states: “The facility in which this food is made also makes food that may contain other ingredients, such as grains. Trace amounts of these other ingredients may be present.” Plaintiffs acknowledge that the inclusion of this language sufficiently addresses their concerns about the labeling of the Products.
B. The Action. After several months of discussions with Diamond’s counsel, Plaintiff Xxxx Xxxxxx filed a nationwide class action complaint on September 18, 2020 in California. Xxxxxx et xx x. Xxxxxxx Pet Foods, Inc., No. 8:20-cv-01788 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 18, 2020) (attached hereto as Exhibit. F). The complaint alleges that each of the plaintiffs purchased the Products because they were labeled “grain free” but the third-party laboratory testing allegedly shows, contrary to the labeling, that the Products do contain grain. The Xxxxxx action was stayed by the Court, pursuant to a stipulated request, until March 8, 2021. On March 1, 2021, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement and Request to Stay All Deadlines in the Xxxxxx action. The Xxxxxx action was voluntarily dismissed on March 29, 2021.
C. The Action. On November 3, 2020, Plaintiffs Xxxxxxx Xxxx and Xxxxxx XxXxxxxx filed a nationwide class action complaint, with allegations substantially similar to the Xxxxxx action, in United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Xxxx action again challenges the marketing and labeling of Diamond Products that are labeled “grain free” or that claim the absence of any grain in the Products.
D. The Action. On February 4, 2021, Plaintiffs Xxxxx X. Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx-Xxxxx, filed an Ohio-only class action complaint, Flick v. Cos...
