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 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. 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. 2.1 Party A is engaged in the business of providing support services (as defined in this Agreement) to clients who intend to relocate to or reside or work in Singapore.
2.2 Party B desires to engage the services of Party A at the outset for an agreed service fee to assist with the relocation search to rent or purchase any eligible property in Singapore and subsequently to consult its own appointed real estate agent and lawyer to finalise the terms of the rental agreement or sale and purchase agreement or Option to Purchase of any potential property in Singapore subject to the applicable laws pertaining to the rental or purchase of residential or commercial properties in Singapore.
2.3 The Parties now intend to regulate their arrangement subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
RECITALS AND BACKGROUND. 1. MEGA is and has been a licensed insurance company domiciled in the State of Oklahoma.
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.)
2. On April 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, adding claims for overtime under the FLSA as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), as well as Rule 23 class action claims for overtime, unpaid wages, and other relief under the state laws of New York, Ohio, and Arizona. (First Am. Compl., ECF No. 19.) Plaintiffs Xxxxxxxx Xxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxx Hope, and Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx were added as additional Named Plaintiffs. (Id.) 02230-61930/10415423.2
3. On June 25, 2015, iQor filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, requesting dismissal of the First Amended Complaint in its entirety. On June 26, 2015, Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of their FLSA overtime claims. (Motion, ECF No. 79.)
4. On August 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding claims for overtime, unpaid wages, and other relief under the state laws of Colorado and North Carolina. (Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 121.) Plaintiffs also added claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. (Id.) Plaintiffs Xxxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx were added as additional Named Plaintiffs. (Id.)
5. On October 19, 2015, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification, and denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Order, ECF No. 142.) The Court conditionally certified the following FLSA Collective: All current and former iQor Contact Center Agents who used TimeQey for timekeeping purposes at any time from October 19, 2012 to December 31, 2014. (Id.)
6. Notice was issued to the FLSA Collective, and 3,545 individuals ultimately filed Consent Forms to join the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
7. On May 19, 2016, the Parties attended a mediation session with respected mediator Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx in New York, New York. The Parties informally exchanged information in preparation for the mediation session, including pay and time records for the putative classes. Despite the Parties’ efforts, the case did not resolve at that time.
8. On July 25, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint adding claims for overtime, unpaid wages, and other relief under the state laws of South Caroli...
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. 2.1 Party A is engaged in the business of providing support services (as defined in this Agreement) to clients who intend to have a Property Condition Report and/or Inventory completed.
2.2 Party B desires to engage the services of Party A at the outset for an agreed service fee for services provided as part of the Property Condition Report and/or Inventory.
2.3 The Parties now intend to regulate their arrangement subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
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.
B. GEO filed a timely Answer to the Complaint on September 25, 2008, disputing the material allegations both as to fact and law and denying any liability to PLAINTIFF XXXXX or to other individuals currently or formerly employed by DEFENDANT as a ―security officer‖ or in another exempt or non-exempt ―security personnel‖ position.
C. On November 10, 2008, PLAINTIFF XXXXX filed his First Amended Complaint, which broadened or otherwise clarified the putative collective action to include ―all security guards and correctional staff who have worked at GEO’s correctional facilities from any time from January 1, 2004, to present‖ as well as ―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.‖
D. On November 24, 2008, Xxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx (―PLAINTIFF XXXXX‖), who had formerly been employed by DEFENDANT as an Instructor, filed an opt-in consent form with the COURT to join this case as a plaintiff.
E. On November 25, 2008, XXX filed a timely Answer to the First Amended Complaint, disputing the material allegations both as to fact and law and denying any liability to PLAINTIFF XXXXX or to other individuals currently or formerly employed by DEFENDANT as a ―security officer‖ or in another exempt or non-exempt ―security personnel‖ position.
F. On or about January 7, 2009, Xxxxx Xxxxxx-Xxxxxx (―PLAINTIFF XXXXXX- XXXXXX‖) and Xxxxxxx Xxx...
