RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. D.1. MEGA is and has been a licensed insurance company domiciled in the State of Oklahoma.
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. A. On March 27, 2018, certain of the Settlement Class Representatives filed a complaint against the BMW Defendants and Xxxxxx Xxxxx LLC and Xxxxxx Xxxxx XxxX (together, the “Bosch Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Compl. (Dkt. 1), Xxxxxxx, et al. v. BMW of North America, LLC et al., Case No. 2:18-cv- 04363 (D.N.J.) (the “Xxxxxxx action”). The complaint asserted claims for violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(C), (D), along with various state law fraudulent concealment claims and claims for violations of various state- law consumer protection laws, and generally alleged that the BMW Defendants defrauded consumers by developing, advertising and selling model year 2009–2013 BMW X5 xDrive35d or 2009–2011 BMW 335d vehicles that were equipped with so-called “defeat devices” that turned off or down emissions controls when the vehicles were in normal operation and not in a regulatory
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. A. Named Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint against Defendants on March 5, 2019, which is now pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, designated as Index No. 603074/2019.
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. A. On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx commenced a putative class action in U.S. District Court, Central District of California, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion and theft of property claims as a result of Defendant’s transition of in-person instruction and other educational services to a virtual environment during a portion of the Spring 2020 semester due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related state and local public health mandates and orders.
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. 1. On January 21, 2015, Named Plaintiff Paris Shoots filed a Class Action Complaint in Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota alleging claims for unpaid wages under Minnesota law. (See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) On February 20, 2015, iQor removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. (Id.)
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. A. On or about August 22, 2008, Plaintiff Xxxxx Xxxxx (―PLAINTIFF XXXXX‖), an individual formerly employed by The GEO Group, Inc., (―DEFENDANT ― or ―GEO‖) as an exempt Lieutenant at the Xxxxxx Correctional Facility in Lawton, Oklahoma, commenced this LITIGATION by filing a Complaint against GEO in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Case No. CIV-08-881-M, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (―FLSA‖) and Title 40 of the Oklahoma Statutes. Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx alleged that he would seek to pursue his FLSA claim on behalf of other ―similarly situated‖ individuals pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and that he would seek to pursue his Oklahoma state law claims on behalf of a class of ―all security guards and correctional staff who have worked at GEO Group’s correctional facilities in Oklahoma at any time from January 1, 2004 to present,‖ pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx filed his signed opt-in form with the Complaint on August 22, 2008.
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. A. Named Plaintiff has asserted claims and intends to file a Class Action Complaint (“Action”). Defendants intend to vigorously contest each and every claim and deny all material allegations of the Action, as to which Defendants allege numerous meritorious defenses. Defendants, without admitting any wrongdoing or liability, nevertheless have agreed to enter into this Agreement to avoid further expense, inconvenience and the distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation, and to be completely free of any further controversy with respect to the claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in, or relate in any way whatsoever to, the Action.
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. FINRA is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States. FINRA is dedicated to investor protection and market integrity through effective and efficient regulation. The ASC, the regulatory agency responsible for administering Alberta’s securities laws, is entrusted to xxxxxx a fair and efficient capital market in Alberta and to protect investors. FINRA and the ASC have a common interest in assisting each other by sharing confidential information relevant to each of their respective regulatory programs and underlying missions. The Authorities desire to enter into this MOU to set forth the terms under which each Authority will share confidential information while preserving the confidentiality of the other Authority’s confidential information.
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. A. The Nature of the Case and Claims Raised Named Plaintiffs Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, and Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx worked and/or work as drivers for Defendant at its various North Carolina locations. Named Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated drivers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (“NCWHA”), N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 95-25.6, 95-25.8, 95-25.13, 95-25.22(a), (a1), and (d). Named Plaintiffs claim that Defendant (1) maintains a corporate policy of failing to compensate Plaintiffs for all hours worked from clock-in to clock-out; (2) maintains a corporate policy of automatically deducting thirty (30) minute lunch breaks from Plaintiffs each shift, irrespective of whether Plaintiffs take the lunch break or not; (3) maintains a corporate policy of underpaying and failing to lawfully compensate Plaintiffs at the appropriate overtime rates, in light of Defendant’s failure to incorporate all bonuses for purposes of the regular rate and overtime; (4) illegally deducts from Plaintiffs’ wages; and (5) fails to pay Plaintiffs all owed earned and/or accrued promised wages. Plaintiffs claim that each of these alleged violations resulted in a failure to accurately calculate wages due, in violation of the FLSA and/or the NCWHA, including violating the NCWHA even in weeks when no overtime was worked.
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. 1. Plaintiff Xxxxxx Xxxxx filed this case on February 19, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Kentucky state law.
