Nature of Litigation. On February 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a class action in the New Mexico First Judicial District Court, Case No. D-117-CV-2021-00030 (“the District Court Case”), alleging that Defendant entered into illegal payday loans in violation of the New Mexico Small Loan Act (“SLA”), NMSA § 58-15-1 et seq. and the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (“UPA”), NMSA §57-12-1 et seq. On February 9, 2022, the District Court entered an order denying Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Defendant appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, Case No. A-1-CA-40298 (“the Appeal”). The Appeal is currently pending. This Agreement resolves all claims in the District Court Case and the Appeal (collectively, “the Lawsuit”), except as provided in Terms of Settlement Paragraph 6.
Nature of Litigation. On October 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint captioned Bridgeport Pain Control Center, Ltd. v. MedPlus, Inc., et al., Case No. 13 C 7465 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Litigation”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (“TCPA”), and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2 (“ICFA”), and committed common law torts (conversion, private nuisance, trespass to chattels) by purportedly transmitting via fax certain allegedly unsolicited advertisements that did not contain an opt out notice in the form required by 47 U.S.C. § 227. The complaint also alleged these same claims against EMG3, LLC (“EMG3”), but those claims were voluntarily dismissed.
Nature of Litigation. On July 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed a class action in this court, Case No. 1:14-cv-00670-MV-KBM, alleging that Defendant violated the Truth in Lending Act, the New Mexico Uniform Commercial Code, the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, and the New Mexico Pawnbrokers Act.
Nature of Litigation. Plaintiffs filed the above captioned action, for themselves and all others similarly situated, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of their Fourth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, resulting from strip searches conducted of them at the Will County Adult Detention Facility (“WCADF”).
Nature of Litigation. On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff, individually and on
Nature of Litigation. In this lawsuit, captioned Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxx
Nature of Litigation. On February 1, 2014 Plaintiff filed a class action in this court, alleging that Defendant violated the Truth in Lending Act.
Nature of Litigation. [Consumer] filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging both class and individual claims. Individually, [consumer] claimed that she purchased a defective car from Xxxxxx, that Xxxxxx breached warranties with respect to the car under federal and state law, and that Wonderlic was liable under the terms of the retail installment contract (Counts III and IV). On behalf of a class, [consumer] alleged that Xxxxxx and Wonderlic understated the finance charge and annual percentage rate on their retail installment contracts, in that a $50 charge for “V.S.I. insurance” was included in the amount financed and excluded from the finance charge and annual percentage rate. This was alleged to violate the Truth in Lending Act (Count I) and the Illinois Sales Finance Agency Act (Count II). Only Wonderlic is alleged to be subject to the Sales Finance Agency Act. The class desires to settle its claims against Wonderlic, having taken into account through its counsel the risks, delay and difficulties involved in establishing a right to recovery in excess of that offered by this settlement and the likelihood that the litigation will be further protracted and expensive. Wonderlic denies any liability to [consumer] or the class and has asserted a number of defenses to the complaint. Nevertheless, Xxxxxxxxx considers it desirable that the action and the claims alleged therein be settled upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, in order to avoid further expense and burdensome, protracted litigation, and to put to rest all claims that have been or might be asserted by the plaintiff or the class arising out of or related to the subject matter of the complaint. Counsel for Wonderlic has made certain representations to counsel for the class concerning the number of class members. Specifically, it has been represented that there are charges for “V.S.I. insurance” on 64 contracts that Wonderlic purchased from Xxxxxx, including the [consumer] contract, and 257 contracts that Wonderlic purchased from other auto dealers. Counsel for the class have investigated the facts available to them and the law. Based on the foregoing, and upon an analysis of the benefits which this settlement agreement affords the class, counsel for the class considers it to be in the best interest of the class to enter into this settlement agreement. In consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, it is stipulated an...
Nature of Litigation. On January 17, 2018, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class, filed this lawsuit. [Doc.
1.] The Litigation alleges ERC violated the Fair Debt Collection 1 All capitalized terms in this Agreement shall have the meanings and definitions set forth herein. Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. by mailing Plaintiff a letter which, by its terms, only described a debt ERC sought to collect and failed to “clearly and accurately” disclose the name of the creditor to whom the debt was then owed in satisfaction § 1692g(a)(2). Id. On February 12, 2018, ERC filed an Answer denying all liability to the Plaintiff and Class Members and asserting numerous Affirmative Defenses. [Doc. 5.] Thereafter, the Court conducted a Rule 16 Conference and the Parties each served and responded to written discovery and conducted depositions. The Court’s docket reflects the Litigation was heavily contested. On May 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification, which ERC opposed. [Docs. 14 and 21.] On October 24, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and certified the following litigation class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), which consists of 1,692 members: All persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to whom Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC mailed an initial written communication to collecta debt between January 17, 2017 and February 7, 2018, which was not returned as undeliverable, and which stated “[y]our recently disconnected Time Warner Cable account has been forwarded to us to assist you in the resolution of your balance due.” established a toll-free telephone number and website for Class Member inquiries and, on January 16, 2019, served the Court’s approved Notice of Pendency of Class Action to Class Members; only two Class Members sought exclusion by the Court’s deadline. [Doc. 76.] On March 19, 2019, the Court granted the Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings [Doc. 41] pending the Seventh Circuit’s resolution of two certified class cases involving similar issues—Xxxxx x. XXXX Associates, Inc., No. 18-3350 and Xxxxxxx v. Client Services, Inc., E.D. Wis. Case No. 19-1491. On June 6, 2019, the Seventh Circuit issued a decision in Xxxxx, 926 F.3d 377 (7th Cir. 2019) which was unfavorable to Xx. Xxxxxxx’x position and, on January 21, 2020, issued a decision in Xxxxxxx, 948 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2020) which was favorable. Consequently, on February 5, 2020, the Court lifted its stay. [Doc. 44.] On April 21, 2020, the Parties filed cross...
Nature of Litigation. On December 31, 2019, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf 1 As used in this Agreement, capitalized terms have the meanings and definitions set forth herein. of a class, filed this lawsuit entitled and captioned as Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AssetCare LLC, CF Medical LLC and Xxxx Does, Case No. 4:19-cv-05039 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the
