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 between February 11, 2014 through [insert date of Preliminary Approval Order]
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 named plaintiff, Xxxxx Xxxxxxx (“Plaintiff”), filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Nuestro Queso, 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 Members’ claims relating to the alleged collection of biometric information.
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT. The named plaintiff, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx (“Plaintiff”), filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Bell Flavors and Fragrances, 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 the collection of biometric information.
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT. The named plaintiff, Xxxxx Xxxxxx (“Plaintiff”), filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Element Food Solutions, 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 alleged collection of biometric information.
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. 7 Plaintiff Xxx Xxxxxxx filed a putative class action lawsuit against Xxx Xxxxxx Tire Centers of 8 California, Inc. and Xxx Xxxxxx Tire Centers of Central California, Inc (“Defendants” or “Xxx Xxxxxx”) in this Court on January 12, 2018. Plaintiffs Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxxxx Xxxxx filed a similar lawsuit, 9 Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 00-0000-00000000, on August 29, 2017. Plaintiffs Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxx and Xxxxx (“Plaintiffs”) filed a First Amended Complaint in this case on December , 2018. Plaintiffs allege and Xxx Xxxxxx denies that they were not properly paid wages due under the 11 California Labor Codes including claims for (a) failure to properly calculate and pay overtime, (b) failure 12 to provide compliant meal breaks, (c) failure to provide compliant rest breaks, (d) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and (e) failure to pay all wages due and owing at the end of 13 employment. Plaintiffs further allege and Xxx Xxxxxx denies that the aforementioned allegations subject Defendants to civil penalties under Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) and constitute unfair business 14 practices.
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT. In a class action lawsuit, one or more people called a “Class Representative” (in this case, Xxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxx, and Xxxxxx Xxxxxx), sue on behalf of people who have similar claims. The people together are a “Class.” One court resolves the issues for everyone in the Class, except for those people who choose to exclude themselves from the Class. This lawsuit alleges that GE sold certain GE Profile and GE Monogram microwave ovens bearing the model numbers JEB1090, JEB1095, ZMC1090, or ZMC1095 that contained defects such that the glass on the door of these microwave ovens may break or shatter spontaneously. GE denies all allegations of wrongdoing and contends that the microwave ovens are not defective.
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. In this lawsuit, Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (the “TCPA”), by sending text messages via an autodialer to Class Members after the Class Member texted “STOP.” The TCPA provides, among other relief, that a plaintiff may seek statutory damages of up to $500 per violation, and that this amount may be trebled for willful violations. The TCPA does not provide for the recovery of attorneys’ fees. Defendant denies any wrongdoing and denies that it violated the TCPA. The Court certified the case as a class action so that all claims regarding Defendant’s text messages to Class Members will be resolved class-wide in this single lawsuit. The Court’s decision to certify the case as a class action did not decide any of the merits of the case. This description of the case is general and does not cover all issues or proceedings.
