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. 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 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 by clicking HERE. 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 request exclusion and explains how to request exclusion or to object. The Court will hold a hearing on [Month] [Day], [Year] at [time] to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request by the lawyers representing all Class Members for up to $262,375.00 for a Fees, Costs, and Expenses Award, and for the Plaintiff’s request for a $5,000 Service Payment. You may ask to appear at the hearing, but you don’t have to. More information? For com...
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. 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. 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 the amended complaint filed on November 11, 2020. In the amended compl...
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT. Plaintiff is a former Serendib employee. The Action accuses Serendib 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, and violation of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. 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: Aegis Law Firm, PC, Xxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx, and Xxxxxxx X. Xxxx (“Class Counsel.”) Serendib 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 Action was filed against Shutterfly, LLC (“Shutterfly” or “Defendant”) by Plaintiff Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx alleging Shutterfly engaged in deceptive advertising by advertising improper discounts on merchandise sold in its e-commerce store, Xxxxxxxxxx.xxx. Shutterfly 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 Class Members and resolve the Action. Am I a Class Member? You are a “Class Member” if you purchased from Shutterfly’s e- commerce website (xxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx), one or more products at discounts from an advertised reference price and have not received a refund or credit for your purchase(s) during the Class Period (April 1, 2018 until the date of the Preliminary Approval Order). Excluded from the Class is Xxxxxxxxxx’s Counsel, Xxxxxxxxxx’s officers, directors and employees, and the judge presiding over the Action. Xxxxxxxxxx has further agreed to provide to each Class Member who does not submit a Claim Form by the Response Deadline one (1) Direct Benefit Voucher which may be applied for up to $5.00 toward any purchase at Xxxxxxxxxx.xxx. Both Vouchers and Direct Benefit Vouchers will apply to the purchase prices that Shutterfly offers to the general public, will be transferable to others without restriction, and will be usable in conjunction with an available free shipping code. They will not be usable with other voucher or discount codes, will expire after one year after issuance, and will have no residual value if the amount redeemed is less than the voucher amount. 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 sue Shutterfly about the legal claims in the Action ever again. If you exclude yourself, you cannot receive a Voucher(s) 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 Xxxxxxxxx, LLP and Xxxxxx Postman LLC) for $2,400,000 in attorneys’ fees, costs, and Individual Settlement Award for the Named Plaintiff (Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx) who will request for $12,500 for her service. You may ask to appear at the hearing, but you don’t have to. More in...
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT. Plaintiff is a former Ansible employee. The Action accuses Ansible of violating California labor laws by failing to pay all wages owed including overtime wages, wages due upon termination, and reimbursable expenses, and for 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 (“Class Counsel”): Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, SBN 263809 xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx XXXX LAW FIRM 0000 Xxxxxxxx Xxxx., Xxxxx 0000 Xxx Xxxxxxx, XX 00000 Telephone: (000) 000-0000 Facsimile: (000) 000-0000 Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx, XX, Esq. SBN 146621 Xxxxxxx@xxx.xxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Esq. SBN 334104 xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx XXXXXXXX LAW GROUP, APC 00000 Xxxxxxx Xxxx. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (000) 000-0000 Facsimile: (000) 000-0000 Ansible 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 accuses Defendant of violating California labor laws by allegedly failing (1) to pay minimum wages; (2) to pay overtime wages;
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT. Plaintiff is a former MASI employee. The Action accuses MASI of violating California labor laws by failing to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, sick pay, and waiting time penalties 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 strongly denies violating any laws or failing to pay any wages and contends it complied with all applicable laws.
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT. In the Action, plaintiff Xxxxx Xxxxx (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making calls to certain cellular telephone numbers using an automated dialer without the consent of the user or subscriber of that number. The Action was originally filed in 2017, and seeks statutory damages against Defendants. There have been substantial proceedings in the case. Plaintiff’s attorneys (referred to as “Plaintiff’s Counsel and identified in Section VI below) have conducted a thorough investigation into, and have engaged in extensive litigation and discovery with respect to, the relevant facts and law. Plaintiff’s Counsel has concluded that the outcome of the Action is uncertain and that a settlement is in the best interests of Plaintiff and the class members. Defendants deny that they acted unlawfully, deny that they violated the TCPA or any other law or legal requirement, and assert numerous defenses against Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants further deny that class certification is required or appropriate. Defendants have contested Plaintiff’s claims, have contested liability to the class members, and have asserted numerous defenses. The Court never resolved the claims and defenses of the parties in the Action. The Court also never resolved whether Defendants did anything wrong. This Notice should not be understood as an expression of any opinion by the Court as to the merits of the Plaintiff’s claims or Defendants’ defenses. Plaintiff and Defendants recognize that to resolve these and other important issues would be time-consuming, uncertain, and expensive.
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT. Plaintiff Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx-Xxxxxx alleges that the Town of Apple Valley’s (the “Town’s”) rates for solid waste (trash)/recycling violate California Constitution article XIII D, because the rates include amounts that cannot be legally charged for solid waste/recycling fees. The Town 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 Town solid waste/recycling customers and resolve the case. The Class: All persons (which includes entities such as firms, companies, corporations, associations, and public entities) who, between July 24, 2016 and [PRELIMINARY APPROVAL DATE], were Account Holders, but excluding (a) any officer or council member of the Town; (b) any judge assigned to hear this case; and (c) persons who timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class as provided in this Agreement. An Account Holder is a person or entity (i.e. business) that held a solid waste/recycling account in the Town of Apple Valley. What relief does the Settlement provide? The Town has agreed to fund a Common Fund in the gross amount of Three Million One Hundred Fifty Thousand and no cents ($3,150,000.00) that will be used to pay all fees and costs approved by the Court, and the remainder of which will be automatically distributed through monthly xxxx credits to current trash/solid waste customers as of [Exclusion Deadline] Former solid waste/recycling customers who no longer hold an account as of [Exclusion Deadline] can submit a claim to obtain a refund of a portion of the fees they paid during the Class Period, which will also be paid from the Common Fund. If you are a former customers and wish to receive a refund, you must submit a claim form which you may obtain at xxx.XXXxxxxXxxxxxxxxx.xxx, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at (000) 000-0000 or Town of Xxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, X.X. Xxx 0000 Xxxxxx, XX 00000.Xxx deadline to submit a Claim Form is [Exclusion Deadline]. What are my other options? If you don’t want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by [Exclusion Deadline] or you won’t be able to xxx the Town about the legal claims in the Action ever again. If you exclude yourself, you cannot receive any credits or a refund from this Settlement. If you stay in the Settlement, you may object to it by [Exclusion Deadline]. A detailed notice available at xxx.XXXxxxxXxxx...
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT. Plaintiff is a Costco employee. The Action accuses Costco of failing to pay all compensation owed with respect to meal or rest premiums and sick leave on account of Costco’s payments of Hero Pay and Extra Checks (the semi-annual check paid to long-term hourly employees). Based on the same claims, Plaintiff has also claimed civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698, et seq.) (“PAGA”). Plaintiff is represented by attorneys, referred to here as Class Counsel. Costco strongly denies violating any law or failing to pay any wages and contends it has complied with all applicable laws.
