Plaintiffs’ Claims. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s defenses are without merit. Neither this Agreement nor any documents referred to or contemplated herein, nor any action taken to carry out this Agreement is, may be construed as, or may be used as an admission, concession or indication by or against Plaintiff, Class Members, or Class Counsel as to the merits of any claims or defenses asserted, or lack thereof, in the Class Action. However, in the event that this Settlement is finally approved by the Court, none of Plaintiff, Class Members, or Class Counsel will oppose Defendant’s efforts to use this Agreement to prove that Plaintiff and Class Members have resolved and are forever barred from re-litigating the Released Claims.
Plaintiffs’ Claims. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s defenses are without merit. Neither this Agreement nor any documents referred to or contemplated herein, nor any action taken to carry out this Agreement is, may be construed as, or may be used as an admission, concession or indication by or against Plaintiff, Class Members, or Class Counsel as to the merits of any claims or defenses asserted, or lack thereof, in the Action. However, in the event that this Settlement is finally approved by the Court, the Plaintiff,
Plaintiffs’ Claims. 1. This class action lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed on February 22, 2017, against the City of Milwaukee (“Milwaukee”), the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission (“FPC”), and in his official capacity Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, the Chief of the Milwaukee Police Department (“MPD”)1 (hereinafter referred to individually and collectively as “Defendants”) by named plaintiffs Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxx, and Xxxxxx Xxxxx (hereinafter referred to individually and collectively as “Plaintiffs”). 2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs related to stops and frisks by the Milwaukee Police Department (“MPD”) violate the United States Constitution by: (1) authorizing MPD officers to stop people without individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (2) authorizing MPD officers to frisk people without individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and (3) sustaining stops and frisks of 1Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint and Amended Class Action Complaint named as a defendant Xxxxxx Xxxxx in his official capacity as Chief of the MPD. Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ¶ 27 (May 24, 2017), (Docket #19) (“Am. Compl.”). Due to the retirement of Xxxxxx Xxxxx on February 16, 2018 and subsequent appointment of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx as Chief of the MPD, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx is automatically substituted for Xxxxxx Xxxxx as a defendant sued in his official capacity pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). 2Plaintiffs and Defendants are from time to time referred to hereinafter individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” Black and Latino people that involve racial and ethnic profiling, or are otherwise motivated by race and ethnicity, rather than reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Plaintiffs’ Claims. 1. On December 8, 2003, Plaintiff Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx and other plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in this Court currently captioned Glaberson v.
Plaintiffs’ Claims. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant’s defenses are without merit. Neither this Agreement nor any documents referred to or contemplated herein, nor any action taken to carry out this Agreement is, may be construed as, or may be used as an admission, concession or indication by or against Plaintiffs, Class Members, or Class Counsel as to the merits of any claims or defenses asserted, or lack thereof, in the Action. However, in the event that this Settlement is finally approved by the Court, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel will not oppose Defendant’s efforts to use this Agreement to prove that Plaintiffs and Class Members have resolved and are forever barred from re-litigating the Released Claims.
Plaintiffs’ Claims. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ conduct violates Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process. (Dkt. 233, p. 2-3.) Plaintiffs seek classwide declaratory and injunctive relief. (Id. at 3.)
Plaintiffs’ Claims. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs assert three separate claims: (1) improper exclusion of qualified individuals from covered medical assistance under the Medicaid Act; (2) violations of Medicaid comparability; and (3) violations of reasonable promptness. Compl. ¶¶ 64-72; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 64-72. The claims all arose out of a coverage policy that Defendants applied to Kansas Medicaid enrollees seeking coverage of DAAs (“HCV Policy”). Plaintiffs alleged that the HCV Policy excluded care that was medically necessary, and that the exclusion was inappropriately imposed based on the cost of DAAs. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenged the HCV Policy’s exclusion of coverage for certain HCV-infected enrollees based on fibrosis scores.
Plaintiffs’ Claims. On December 8, 2003, Plaintiff Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx and other plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in this Court captioned Xxxxxxx v.
Plaintiffs’ Claims. Named Plaintiff has claimed and continues to claim that 18 the Released Claims, as defined in Section X.B below, have merit and give rise to liability 19 on the part of Defendants. Neither this Agreement, the documents referred to or 20 contemplated herein, nor any action taken to carry out this Agreement is, or may be 21 construed or used as an admission, concession, or indication by or against Named Plaintiff,
Plaintiffs’ Claims. Neither this Agreement nor any documents referred to or contemplated herein, nor any action taken to carry out this Agreement is, may be construed as, or may be used as an admission, concession or indication by or against Plaintiff, Class Members, or Class Counsel as to the merits of any claims or defenses asserted, or lack thereof, in the Action. However, in the event that this Settlement is finally approved by the Court, the Plaintiffs, Participating Class Members, and Class Counsel will not oppose Defendants’ efforts to use this Agreement to prove that Plaintiff and Participating Class Members have resolved and are forever barred from re-litigating the claims released under this Agreement.
