WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT. The Action was filed against Divvymed, LLC (“Divvydose”) by an individual alleging Divvydose made unsolicited telemarketing calls, called numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, and failed to maintain a “do not call” policy. Divvydose denies wrongdoing and liability and both sides disagree on how much, if anything, the Class could have recovered after trial. The Court has not decided which side is right. But both sides have agreed to settle the Action and provide certain benefits to Settlement Class Members in order to avoid the costs of continued litigation. Am I a Settlement Class Member? You are a “Settlement Class Member” if you are a person in the United States who was called by 1564 Ventures, Inc. with a recorded message about Divvydose during the Class Period. Excluded from the Class are the Court, the officers and directors of Divvymed, LLC, and persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class. The Class Period is from June 26, 2019 through November 1, 2019. What relief does the Settlement provide? The Settlement provides $750,000 to pay (1) claims of eligible Settlement Class Members; (2) a Fees, Costs, and Expenses Award to Settlement Class Counsel; (3) a Service Payment to Plaintiff; and (4) costs of for Settlement administration and notice. If you are a Settlement Class Member, you are eligible to receive a share of the Settlement based on the number of calls you received. It is presently estimated that Class Members who timely and validly file a claim may receive approximately $ - . This amount may change as it depends on the number of timely and valid claims submitted by Settlement Class Members and the number of calls associated with those other Settlement Class Members’ claims. To receive a Settlement award you must timely complete and submit a valid Claim Form. A Claim Form is available at www.[xxxx].com. The deadline to submit a Claim Form is [Month] [Day], [Year]. If you elect to complete a Claim Form, your class member identification number is: [SAMPLE12345]. What are my other options? If you don’t want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by [Month] [Day], [Year], or you won’t be able to sue Divvydose or others involved with the calls at issue about the legal claims in the Action ever again. If you stay in the Settlement, you may object to it by [Month] [Day], [Year]. The detailed notice available at www.[xxxx].com describes the claims you will be releasing if you do not reque...
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT. The Action claims that under XXXXX, the Defendants owed fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, and prudence to the Plan and that they violated those duties in connection with the selection and monitoring of the Plan’s investment options. During the Class Period, participants in the Plan were able to allocate their account balances among various investment funds. Named Plaintiffs allege that because the Plan had over $260 million dollars in assets, it had substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that were charged against participants’ investments. Named Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants, however, did not try to reduce the Plan’s expenses and selected for the Plan individual investment options that purportedly charged excessive fees compared to “similar” investment options available to the Plan. Additionally, Named Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to prudently monitor the recordkeeping fees charged to Plan participants. Recordkeeping in simple terms refers to the suite of administrative services provided to retirement plan participants such as enrollment, implementing participants’ investment selections, maintaining the plan website and call center, and providing individual account statements to participants. THE DEFENSES IN THE ACTION Defendants deny all of the claims and allegations made in the Action and deny that they ever engaged in any wrongful conduct. If the Action were to continue, Defendants would raise numerous defenses to liability, including but not limited to: Defendants did not engage in any of the allegedly improper conduct charged in the Complaint; Defendants reasonably and prudently managed the Plan’s investment options and fees and fulfilled all of their fiduciary obligations; The Plan’s investment options were and are reasonable, prudent, and sound investment options for Plan participants; Even if a court were to determine that Defendants failed to discharge any duty under ERISA, any such breach of fiduciary duty did not cause the Plan or its participants to suffer any loss. THE ACTION HAS BEEN AGGRESSIVELY LITIGATED Class Counsel has extensively investigated the allegations in the Action. Among other efforts, Class Counsel reviewed Plan-governing documents and materials, communications with Plan participants, U.S. Department of Labor filings, news articles and other publications, and other documents regarding the general and specific matters that were alleged in the original complaint filed on July 7, 2020 and ...
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT. Plaintiff is a former Colt Builders employee. The Action accuses Colt Builders of violating California labor laws by failing to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, wages due upon termination, wages on a timely basis and reimbursable expenses and failing to provide meal periods, rest breaks and accurate itemized wage statements. Based on the same claims, Plaintiff has also asserted a claim for civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq.) (“PAGA”). Plaintiff is represented by attorneys in the Action: Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx of Employment Rights Law Group, APC and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx of Law Offices of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx (“Class Counsel.”) Colt Builders strongly denies violating any laws or failing to pay any wages and contends it complied with all applicable laws.
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT. Plaintiff is a former Hikei employee. The Action accuses Defendants of violating California labor laws by failing to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, wages due upon termination and reimbursable expenses and failing to provide meal periods, rest breaks and accurate itemized wage statements. Based on the same claims, Plaintiff has also asserted a claim for civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq.) (“PAGA”). Plaintiff is represented by attorneys in the Action: Xxxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx of Xxxxxxx Xxxx and Xxxx X. Xxxxxxx of Xxxx Xxxxxxx Law (“Class Counsel.”) Defendants strongly deny violating any laws or failing to pay any wages and contends it complied with all applicable laws.
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT. Plaintiff is a former Hillsides employee. The Action accuses Hillsides of violating California labor laws by failing to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, wages due upon termination and reimbursable expenses and failing to provide meal periods, rest breaks, and accurate itemized wage statements. Based on the same claims, Plaintiff has also asserted a claim for civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq.) (“PAGA”). Plaintiff is represented by attorneys in the Action: Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx of XXXX LAW FIRM (“Class Counsel”). Xxxxxxxxx strongly denies violating any laws or failing to pay any wages and contends it complied with all applicable laws.
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT. Plaintiffs Xxxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxxxxx Xxxxx allege that Guess?, Inc., and Guess? Retail, Inc. (“Guess” or “Defendants”) engaged in deceptive advertising by advertising purportedly improper reference prices on merchandise. Guess denies wrongdoing and liability and both sides disagree on how much, if anything, the Class could have recovered after trial. No court has decided which side is right. But both sides agreed to provide benefits to Guess Factory customers and resolve the case. Am I a Class Member? You are a “Class Member” if between April 17, 2011 and [Month] [Day], [Year], you purchased any product where a higher reference price was displayed in a Guess Factory store in California, and you are not Defendants’ Counsel, Defendants’ officers, directors, and employees, or the judge presiding over the Action. What relief does the Settlement provide? If you are a Class Member, you are eligible to receive a Settlement Voucher or Settlement Vouchers, depending on your total qualifying purchases and, good for purchase at any Guess Factory store in California, for (i) $4, $8, $9, or $12 off any purchase or (ii) $5 off a purchase of $20 or more, or $10 off a purchase of $35 or more. If you received this Postcard Notice and do not submit a Claim Form, you shall receive one (1) Settlement Voucher for $8 off any purchase. To receive a different type of Settlement Voucher, you must timely complete and submit a valid Claim Form, and, if required, submit proof of such purchase(s). A Claim Form is available by clicking HERE. The deadline to submit a Claim Form is . If you wish to submit a Claim Form, your Class Member ID is . What are my other options? If you don’t want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by , or you won’t be able to xxx Guess about the legal claims in the Action ever again. If you exclude yourself, you cannot receive a Voucher from this Settlement. If you stay in the Settlement, you may object to it by . The detailed notice available at explains how to request exclusion or object. The Court will hold a hearing on at to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request by the lawyers representing all Class Members (Xxxxx-Xxxxx & Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxxxxx Law A.P.C.) for $494,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and for the class representatives’ (Xxxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxxxxx Xxxxx) request for $2,000 each for their services. You may ask to appear at the hearing, but you don’t have to.
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT. Plaintiff is a former ABR employee. The Action accuses ABR of violating California labor laws by failing to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, wages due upon termination and reimbursable expenses; failing to provide meal periods, rest breaks and accurate itemized wage statements; and failing to implement a lawful sick pay/paid time off policy. Based on the same claims, Plaintiff has also asserted a claim for civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698, et seq.) (“PAGA”). Plaintiff is represented by attorneys in the Action: Xxxxx Xxxx, Esq. xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx Xxxx Xxxxxx, Esq. xxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx MARA LAW FIRM, PC 0000 Xxxxxx Xxx Xxx Xxxxx, Xxxxx 000 Xxx Xxxxx, XX 00000 Telephone: (000) 000-0000 Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Esq. Xxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx LAWYERS FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONSUMER RIGHTS 0000 Xxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxx 00000 Telephone: (000) 000-0000 (Plaintiff's attorneys are referred to as “Class Counsel.”) ABR strongly denies violating any laws or failing to pay any wages and contends it complied with all applicable laws.
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT. Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant. The Action alleges Defendant violated California labor laws by failing to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, wages due upon termination and reimbursable expenses, and failing to provide meal periods, rest breaks and accurate itemized wage statements. Based on the same claims, Plaintiff has also asserted a claim for civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq.) (“PAGA”). Plaintiff is represented by attorneys in the Action: Xxxxxxxxxxx X. Xxxxx, Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxxx, and Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx of KJT Law Group LLP., 000 Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxx 000, Xxxxxxxx, XX 00000 (“Class Counsel”). Defendant strongly denies violating any laws or failing to pay any wages and contends it complied with all applicable laws.
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT. Plaintiff is a former Defendant employee. The Action accuses Defendant of violating California labor laws for (1) failure to compensate for rest periods and other non-productive time; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to provide and record meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (5) failure to provide and maintain compliant wage statements and failure to maintain payroll records; (6) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (7) failure to pay wages upon termination; (8) failure to pay costs of medical or physical examination; (9) secret payment of lower wages; (10) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; (11) failure to provide written notice of material terms of employment; and (12) unlawful or unfair business practices. Based on the same claims, Plaintiff has also asserted a claim for civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq.) (“PAGA”). Plaintiff is represented by attorneys in the Action: Xxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxx XxXxxxx, and Xxxxxxxx Xxx of CAPSTONE LAW APC, 0000 Xxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxx, Xxxxx 0000, Xxx Xxxxxxx, XX 00000, telephone number (“Class Counsel/PAGA Counsel.”) Defendant strongly denies violating any laws or failing to pay any wages and contends it complied with all applicable laws.
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT. The Class Action claims that Defendants violated the federal ERISA pension statute in several ways. First, Class Representatives allege that, under the terms of the Plan, they are entitled to unreduced pension benefits (i.e., without reductions for early retirement) because they were terminated within three years of a “Change in Control.” The Class Representatives allege that two separate transactions qualify as a “Change in Control” under the Plan’s terms: (a) a June 1, 2015 transaction under which Xxxxx became an independent company; and (b) a December 6, 2016 transaction that made Talen a privately held company. Under an alternate theory, Class Representatives seek the same unreduced pension benefits and allege that when XXX initially adopted the Plan, it illegally omitted from the Plan a provision providing those benefits, specifically the “Displaced Managers” benefits that were allegedly contained in the PPL Retirement Plan. Second, the Class Representatives allege that, because they were entitled to an unreduced pension benefit, either because of the Plan’s “Change in Control” provisions or because they were entitled to the “Displaced Managers” benefits, the Plan should also have paid them monthly supplements to Social Security. These supplements ranged in amounts up to $1,000 beginning at the time their pensions commenced and then reducing to a maximum of $250 per month from age 62 to the age for full Social Security benefits. Third, the Class Representatives allege that certain Defendants violated their ERISA fiduciary duties when they: (a) did not disclose or inform employees about the existence and availability of the Change in Control benefits and monthly supplements in their Plan communications; and, (b) did not take steps to correct the omission from the Plan of the Displaced Managers benefits and associated monthly supplements.
