WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT. The named Plaintiffs Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxxx Xxxxxxx (“Plaintiffs”), filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Visage Screen-Print, Inc. (“Defendant”) collected its employees’ fingerprints without making the disclosures and receiving the written consent required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. (“BIPA”). Defendant denied and continues to deny Plaintiffs’ allegations. Notwithstanding their disagreements, the parties have proposed a settlement that, if approved by the Court, will resolve the Settlement Class’s claims relating to alleged biometric identifiers and biometric information.
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT. The lawsuit contends that the Defendants failed to pay the non-overtime exempt employees of Original Mike’s all overtime and regular compensation they were owed, failed to provide legal meal and rest periods and failed to pay meal and rest compensation, failed to provide accurate wage statements and failed to pay all compensation owed upon termination of employment. Plaintiff alleges that this conduct violated California law and that the class members are entitled to recover money for the violations. Defendants deny the allegations in the lawsuit. The Court has not determined that the Defendants have violated any law. Questions visit xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT. The named plaintiff, Xxxxxxxxx Xxxx (“Plaintiff”), filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Defendant collected its employees’ finger and/or handprints without making the disclosures and receiving the written consent required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. (“BIPA”). Defendant denied and continues to deny Plaintiff’s allegations. Notwithstanding their disagreements, the parties have proposed a settlement that, if approved by the Court, will resolve the Settlement Class’ claims relating to the collection of biometric information.
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants engaged in the policy and practice of providing insufficient food and nutrition to all detainees and prisoners admitted to the Montgomery County Jail between July 25, 2011 to the present who spent two weeks or more housed at the jail. The lawsuit alleges that these practices violate the Constitution and laws of the United States. Defendants deny they did anything wrong. The Defendants further claim that the Class Members are not entitled to any damages.
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT. The Lawsuit claims, generally, that Shell violated provisions of the California Labor Code and Wage Order by: (1) failing to pay reporting time pay when operators were scheduled for standby shifts; (2) willfully failing to pay required reporting time pay upon termination; and (3) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements. The Lawsuit also claims these violations amounted to unfair business practices under the California Business and Professions Code, and make Shell liable for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Shell disputes the claims and denies allegations that they violated California law. The Parties are confident each side has strong legal and factual positions to support their claims and defenses, but both sides recognize the risks and expenses associated with continued litigation. The parties in the case have agreed to settle the Lawsuit and have entered into a written settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”), which the Court has preliminarily approved. This Settlement is the result of good faith, arm’s length negotiations between the Class Representatives and Shell, through their respective attorneys. Both sides agree that in light of the risks and expenses associated with continued litigation, the Settlement is fair and appropriate under the circumstances, and in the best interests of the Class Members. The Court has not yet ruled on the merits of the Class Representatives’ claims or Defendants’ defenses. The Settlement is a compromise and is not an admission of liability on the part of Defendants.
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT. The named Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Defendant collected employees’ biometric information without making the disclosures and receiving the written consent required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. (“BIPA”). Defendant denied these allegations. Notwithstanding their disagreements, the parties have proposed a settlement that, if approved by the Court, will resolve the claims.
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq., prohibits private entities from: 1) collecting, capturing or otherwise obtaining biometric identifiers and/or information, such as fingerprints, of another person without first providing such individual with certain written disclosures and obtaining written consent; 2) possessing biometric identifiers and/or information without developing a written policy, publicly available, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the biometric identifiers and/or information; and 3) disclosing biometric identifiers and/or information without consent. This lawsuit alleges that Defendant violated BIPA by requiring its current and/or former employees to submit their fingerprints for timekeeping purposes without first providing the requisite disclosures or obtaining the requisite consent. Defendant contests these claims and denies that it violated BIPA.
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT. In the lawsuit, Xxxxx Xxxxxx (“Plaintiff”) claims that Drug Depot (“Defendant”) violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (the “TCPA”), by sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to members of the Class without their prior express invitation or permission and/or without specific opt- out language that Plaintiff contends was required. Plaintiff seeks money damages for every Class member. On January 29, 2018, the Court certified the case as a class action so that the claims about Defendant’s faxes sent by or on behalf of Defendant from February 27, 2012 through April 27, 2015 can be resolved class-wide in this single lawsuit. The Court’s decision to certify the class as a class action did not decide any of the merits of the case. Defendant denies that it violated the TCPA. This description of the case is general and does not cover all the issues or proceedings.
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT. This lawsuit alleges that Defendant failed to update its credit furnishing for credit card accounts sold to Debt Buyers where the accountholder’s debts were discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy after they were sold. As a result, the entry on the accountholder’s credit report associated with the account (or “tradeline”) continued to reflect that the debts were sold, charged off, and $0 balance, and did not indicate that the debts were included or discharged in bankruptcy. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s credit furnishing practices have harmed consumers by adversely affecting their ability to get credit. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant’s credit furnishing practices have pressured some consumers into paying those discharged debts because they feared that not doing so would negatively impact the perception of their creditworthiness to prospective creditors and employers. Defendant denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing and does not admit or concede any actual or potential fault, wrongdoing, or liability in connection with any facts or claims that have been or could have been alleged in this lawsuit or in any similar action. Defendant denies that it attempted to collect discharged debts or otherwise violated bankruptcy discharge injunctions. For more detailed information as to Plaintiff’s allegations, you may review a copy of Plaintiff’s complaint on this Settlement Website, at [web address]. You also may request from the Settlement Administrator a copy of the complaint.
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT. On May 17, 2010, three plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and as the representative 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 Xxxxx 000 xx Xxxxxx Xxxx, Xxx Xxxxxx from 1895 until 1954. These three plaintiffs alleged that the generation, disposal and historical failure to properly remediate these chromium sites and associated contamination adversely impacted their use and enjoyment of and caused other property damage to their properties.
