RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. D.1. MEGA is and has been a licensed insurance company domiciled in the State of Oklahoma.
D.2. Mid-West is a licensed insurance company domiciled in the State of Texas. Mid- West was formerly domiciled in the State of Tennessee.
D.3. Chesapeake is and has been a licensed insurance company domiciled in the State of Oklahoma.
D.4. MEGA and Mid-West are subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. (“HealthMarkets”) (formerly known as UICI), a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in North Richland Hills, Texas. Chesapeake is a subsidiary of MEGA. MEGA, Mid-West, and Chesapeake are each bound by any continuing conditions imposed upon them, regardless of their subsidiary status.
D.5. On March 15, 2005, the States of Washington and Alaska issued a call letter to UICI1 for a multi-state examination with stated examination objectives. Those objectives are fully set forth in the Report, Attachment A to this Agreement, at pages 6 – 7.
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
B. On May 8, 2018, a separate complaint was filed against the BMW Defendants and the Bosch Defendants by a group of plaintiffs (including certain of the Settlement Class Representatives) also in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Compl. (Dkt. 1), Xxxxx, et al. v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-08935 (D.N.J.) (the “Xxxxx action”).
C. On August 3, 2018, Plaintiffs’ counsel consolidated the claims asserted in the Xxxxxxx action and the Xxxxx action through the filing of a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “CCAC”) in the Xxxxxxx action (Dkt. 26), and voluntarily dismissed the Xxxxx action.
D. On August 17, 2018, BMW NA filed a motion to dismiss the CCAC. (Dkt.
E. On June 27, 2019, the Court entered an Order granting BMW NA’s motion to dismiss the CCAC, dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice (Dkt. 60).
F. On September 20, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the “FAC”), on behalf of forty-three (43) Plaintiffs asserting RICO claims for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(C), (D), along with violations of various state-law consumer protection laws. (Dkt. 65).2
G. On November 6, 2019, BMW NA filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. (Dkt. 68).3 1 At the time the motion was filed, BMW AG had not been served with the CCAC, and thus did not join in BMW NA’s motion to dismiss.
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. Named Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint on December 3, 2014, which is now pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County (the “Court”), designated as Index No. 606423/2014 (the “Action”).
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. On August 23, 2020 Plaintiff Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx commenced a putative class action in the Central District of California alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion claims as a result of Xx Xxxxx’x transition from in-person instruction and other in- person educational services to virtual educational services during a portion of the Spring 2020 semester due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related state and local public health mandates and orders. Arredondo v.
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. Named Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint on December 3, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which was assigned docket number 08-cv-4874 (the “Action”).
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. 19 A. On July 12, 2018, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California 20 filed an indictment against Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx (“Xxxxxxx”), then Chief Executive Officer of 22
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. The Board and Superintendent acknowledge the following premises for this Agreement:
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. 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.
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. A. The Nature of the Case and Claims Raised
B. Procedural History of the Case
1.1 On April 6, 2021, Opt-in Plaintiffs Xxxxx XxXxxxx, Xxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, and Xxxx Xxxxx filed Consents to Joint Suit as Party Plaintiff. Dkt. 9-1. On April 16, 2021, Opt-in Plaintiffs Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxx, and Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, filed Consents to Joint Suit as Party Plaintiff. Dkt. 13-1.2 On April 29, 2021, Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiffs’ Collective and Class Action Complaint and Affirmative Defenses. Dkt. 23. 1 Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint on September 13, 2021. Dkt. 60. Defendant filed its Answer to the First Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint on September 27, 2021. Dkt. 70. 2Subsequently, Opt-in Plaintiffs Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx XxXxx, Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Xxxx Xxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx and Xxxx Xxxxxxxx have also filed Consents to Join Suit as Party Plaintiffs. Dkts. 25-1, 34-1, 35-1, 35-2, 35-3, 36-1, 36-2, 36-3, 36-4, 41-1, 62-1, 82-1, 84-1, 88-1, 99-1, 99-2, 100-1, 101-1, 101-2, 102-1, and 103-1.
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. D.1. MEGA is and has been a licensed insurance company domiciled in the State of Oklahoma. D.2. Mid-West is a licensed insurance company domiciled in the State of Texas. Mid-West was formerly domiciled in the State of Tennessee.
