WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT. The named plaintiff, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx (“Plaintiff”), filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Xxxxxx & 147th LLC (“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 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 Xxxxxxxxxx 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 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. 1. This case is a class action lawsuit. In a class action, one or more people sue on behalf of others who have similar claims. The person that sues is the class representative. All of the people who have similar claims are part of a “class.” Individual class members do not file lawsuits. Instead, a court resolves all of their claims at once.
2. This case is a class action that challenges the accessibility of: xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx/. Plaintiff alleged that the Website was not accessible to persons with vision disabilities that use screen readers to access the internet. Plaintiff alleged that this violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff sought an order to require Le Sportsac to make its online content accessible to screen reader users.
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT. This Action alleges violations of the Federal Securities Laws (specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. §78j(b) and 78(t)(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5) against the Settling Defendants and Defendant Xxxxxxx. KaloBios is a publicly-traded pharmaceuticals company which, during the Settlement Class Period, traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol “KBIO.” In mid-November 2015, an investor group led by Defendant Xxxxxxx purchased 70% of KaloBios’s outstanding shares. Shortly thereafter, KaloBios received Defendant Xxxxxxx’x proposal to assume operational control. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions, knowingly and recklessly, concerning KaloBios business operations and prospects and prior alleged misconduct by Defendant Xxxxxxx at other companies. On November 18, 2015, KaloBios issued a press release listing Defendant Cross as the company contact stating that KaloBios was “in discussions with Xx. Xxxxxxx regarding possible direction for the company to continue in operation.” It also quoted Defendant Xxxxxxx as saying, “We received communications from Xx. Xxxxxxx informing us of his group’s ownership position, and a proposal to continue the company’s operations. Our board of directors is prepared to entertain any constructive proposal, which we will act upon promptly.” Plaintiffs allege that these statements were knowingly or recklessly false or misleading by misrepresenting that KaloBios and its Board were vetting Defendant Xxxxxxx’x leadership proposals and making an informed decision about whether to hand him operational control. By November 19, 2015, Defendant Xxxxxxx had been appointed CEO of KaloBios and elected as Chairman of its Board of Directors, after which Xx. Xxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxxx were no longer associated with the Company. Plaintiffs allege that over the ensuing weeks, KaloBios and Defendant Xxxxxxx issued a series of public statements touting Defendant Xxxxxxx’x qualifications and those of his business associates to lead KaloBios, the financing options he was lining up, and the “permanent access to capital and M&A deal flow” that his leadership would provide. Plaintiffs allege that these statements were knowingly or recklessly false and misleading by misrepresenting these facts and simultaneously failing to disclose Defendant Xxxxxxx’x alleged significant misconduct at his prior companies and business ventures. The Settlement Class Period ...
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT. The named plaintiff, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx (“Plaintiff”), filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Dart Casting, 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 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 alleged biometric identifiers and biometric information.
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
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT. The named Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Aldi 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”). Aldi 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 lawsuit contends that the Defendants failed to pay the non-overtime exempt employees of Original Xxxx’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. 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.
