The Lawsuit. In 2011, a group of deaf and hard of hearing inmates filed a lawsuit against the IDOC called Xxxxxx x.
The Lawsuit. “The Lawsuit” shall mean Card Activation Technologies x. XxXxxxxx’x Corporation, Case No. 06 CV 5578, pending in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx.
The Lawsuit. 1. On January 31, 2017, XXXXXXX filed his original Class Action Petition against MEF in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri (the “Missouri State Court”), Case No. 17SL-CC00401, asserting two causes of action under the MMPA, a claim for unjust enrichment, and a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief, regarding 1-hour NON-MEMBER MASSAGE SESSIONS he purchased from a Massage Envy® franchised location in Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Missouri. XXXXXXX contended that MEF marketed and advertised 1-hour massages but that the massages included no more than fifty (50) minutes of hands-on massage minutes and sought to recover for the ten (10) minutes of his NON-MEMBER MASSAGE SESSIONS devoted to activities other than the hands-on massage (the “Original Petition”).
The Lawsuit. 1. On August 8, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, entitled, Xxxxxx v. Blue Shield of California Life and Health Insurance Company, Case No. BC516868. On May 21, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).
The Lawsuit. 14. What has happened so far in the case?.................................................
The Lawsuit. 14. What has happened so far in the case? As explained above, after the Named Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, the Defendants moved to dismiss that Amended Complaint. On April 12, 2006, the Court denied the Defendants’ dismissal motion, finding that the Named Plaintiffs had adequately pleaded their claims. This ruling assumed the truth of the allegations of the Amended Complaint and did not make factual findings. The Court has not made any finding that any Defendant or fiduciary of the Plan has engaged in any wrongful conduct or violated any law or regulation. On November 29, 2006, the Court ordered that the Action proceed as a class action. On that date, the Court certified a Class consisting of all persons who were Plan participants and beneficiaries at any time between October 19, 1998 and October 19, 2004. As part of that ruling, the Court also designated Wolf Haldenstein as Class Counsel in this consolidated action. The parties have been engaged in the discovery phase of this case, which includes the review and analysis of documents, the taking of depositions, and the exchange of expert reports. To avoid duplication and undue burden, review of the areas of discovery that overlap with the discovery in a related securities fraud case brought against some of the same defendants has been coordinated with discovery in that action. To date, the Defendants have produced more than one million pages of documents and Class Counsel have reviewed those documents.
The Lawsuit. 4.1. – Upon (i) a final and favorable judgment of the Lawsuit (i.e. winning Lawsuit) or (ii) a definitive settlement with respect to the Lawsuit, Braskem will pay an additional amount of R$21,570,000.00 to Mitsubishi. Such amount will be indexed by the IGPM from the Closing Date until the occurrence of the events set forth in items (i) or (ii) hereof, when it will be simultaneously converted into Dollars and start accruing interest.
The Lawsuit. A.1 Mulholland, David W. Ariss, Sx. ("Xxxxx"), XXX, XXX xxx Xxxxxxx havx xxtered into a Sxxxxxxxnt Agreement dated December 7, 2001 (the "Settlement Agreement"), resolving a legal action between UCI, NFI and Carroll, as plaintiffs (hereinaftxx xxxxectively "Plaintiffs"), and Mulholland and Ariss solely in xxxxx xxxividual capacities, as defendants, entitled UNIVERSAL CONSULTANTS, INC., ET AL., V. MULHOLLAND, ET AL., Case No. 00XX00000 (the "Lawsuit"), filed on November 13, 2001 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange (the "California Court"), which Settlement Agreement has been approved by permanent protective order of the California Court (the "Permanent Protective Order") filed December 31, 2001;
The Lawsuit. On or about January 20, 2006, Vista filed a civil lawsuit Vxxxx.xxx. Inc. v,
The Lawsuit. On May 17, 2010, three plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, asserting nuisance and other claims, alleging their properties have been adversely impacted by a chrome ore processing plant and the generation, disposal and alleged historical failure to properly remediate hexavalent chromium contamination and COPR within the Settlement Class boundaries and at several locations along Route 440 in Jersey City known as Study Areas 5, 6, and 7 and Site 119. The COPR and alleged related hexavalent chromium contamination came from a chromium manufacturing facility formerly operated by the Mutual Chemical Company on Roxxx 000 xx Xxxxxx Xxxx, Xxx Xxxxxx xrom 1895 until 1954. These three plaintiffs alleged that the generation, disposal and historical failure to properly remediate these chromium sites and associated contamination caused a loss of use and enjoyment, and other property damages to properties in the surrounding neighborhoods.
