The Lawsuit Sample Clauses

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. 1.1 SOMI will file a lawsuit against TikTok (the "Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit concerns the social media and video content services offered by TikTok through its website(s) (including xxx.xxxxxx.xxx) and its mobile app(s) (the "TikTok Service"). XXXX commences the Lawsuit because it essentially believes that TikTok unlawfully processes personal data of minors and violates consumer law and that harmful content is unlawfully displayed to minors through the TikTok service (the "Infringements"). 1.2 SOMI will bring the Lawsuit in the first instance against, at SOMI's option, TikTok Technology Ltd., TikTok Information Technologies UK Ltd., TikTok Inc., TikTok Technologies Belgium and/or other legal entities involved in the Infringements ("TikTok").

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”). 2. Plaintiffs FAC made various allegations regarding Blue Shield’s “Vital Shield” health insurance policies series. Plaintiffs alleged that when Blue Shield administered claims submitted by Blue Shield enrollees with the Vital Shield policies, Blue Shield wrongfully failed to count certain out-patient medical services towards its members’ deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums, and wrongfully excluded from coverage certain services until the out-of-pocket maximum had been met. Plaintiffs alleged causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair business practices in violation of Bus. and Prof. Code section 17200, and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs sought damages for monies for health insurance benefits that Blue Shield did not pay as a result of the alleged wrongful practices. 3. On September 3, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Blue Shield filed its opposition on December 4, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on January 22, 2016. On February 18, 2016, the Court held a hearing and granted the class certification motion on all causes of action. The Court appointed Xxxxxxxx & Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxx Firm and Law Office of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx as Class Counsel and appointed Plaintiffs Xxxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx as Class Representatives.

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”). 2. On May 9, 2017, MEF moved to dismiss the Original Petition, arguing XXXXXXX could have no damages after his first NON-MEMBER MASSAGE SESSION because, after the first purchased session, he would have known the amount of hands-on massage time provided and suffered no ascertainable loss caused by MEF. 3. On July 13, 2017, XXXXXXX filed an Amended Petition based on his and putative class members’ damages arising from their first or “introductory” NON-MEMBER MASSAGE SESSION. 4. On August 15, 2017, MEF moved to dismiss the Amended Petition, again arguing that XXXXXXX had suffered no ascertainable loss. 5. On November 13, 2018, the Missouri State Court denied MEF’s motion to dismiss, concluding that XXXXXXX had sufficiently pled ascertainable loss, among other things. 6. On November 14, 2018, MEF filed a motion for summary judgment, primarily arguing that PIROZZI’s claims were time-barred and he did not suffer an ascertainable loss. 7. When XXXXXXX responded to MEF’s summary judgment motion, he also moved for leave to file a Second Amended Petition (“SAP”), which added a new plaintiff, GREEN, dropped his unjust enrichment claims, and asserted that MEF was liable for purported damages arising from all NON-MEMBER MASSAGE SESSIONS the CLASS MEMBERS purchased. When asking the Court for leave to file the SAP, XXXXXXX stated that he mistakenly believed that a customer’s “introductory” massage session was only his first massage session when he filed his Amended Petition. 8. On March 19, 2019, the Missouri State Court granted PIROZZI’s motion for leave to amend. MEF’s summary judgment motion remained under submission. 9. On March 20, 2019, PLAINTIFFS filed the SAP in Missouri State Court. 10. On April 1, 2019, MEF f...

The Lawsuit. At closing each party agrees to execute a Dismissal With Prejudice in the pending litigation between the City and the County, Xxxxxxxxx County v. City of Hendersonville, 92 CVS 1186, and each party hereto does hereby release the other party from any and all causes of action heretofore arising from or relating to the facts, occurrences, agreements and transactions that were the subject of that civil action.

The Lawsuit. What has happened so far in the case?

The Lawsuit. On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed this this lawsuit, entitled

The Lawsuit. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brought the lawsuit alleging that Defendant, a bank, breached its customer’s Account contracts by charging overdraft fees on debit card transactions authorized on sufficient funds (the “Lawsuit”).

The Lawsuit. A. On November 19, 2015, the Named Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants alleging that Vita-Mix blenders were defective because they deposit tiny black polytetrafluoroethylene (“PTFE”) flecks into blended food and drink. Plaintiffs asserted claims for: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability;