A.B. et al. v. Regents of the University of California et al.
A.B. et al. v. Regents of the University of California et al.
On November 10, 2021, the Court entered a Final Approval Order and Judgment in a class action, A.B. et al. v. Regents of the University of California et al., (C.D. Cal.) Case No. 2:20-CV-09555-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The settlement provided a $73 million Settlement Fund for Class Members, and required that institutional changes be implemented at UCLA. All confirmed Class Members received Tier 1 Settlement payments, while eligible Class Members who filed Tier 2 or Tier 3 claims had the opportunity to receive additional payments.
All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
UCL
Aaland v. One Planet Ops, Inc., et al.
Aaland v. One Planet Ops, Inc., et al.
On November 19, 2021, the Court entered an Order and Judgment in a class action, Mike Aaland v. Contractors.com & One Planet Ops Inc., Case No. 19-2-24212-4 SEA (Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for King County). The settlement provides a total settlement value of $1,529,000.00. $754,500 in lead benefits and $774,500.00 to be paid to all approved Class Members who were all residents of Washington State with a cellular telephone number to which at least one electronic commercial text message that was transmitted by Contractors.com or someone acting on behalf of Defendant. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
AOP
Contractors.com, One Planet Ops, Inc., text messages from Contractors.com, Washington State Consumer Protection Act, text, Washington CPA
Aberin, et al. v American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
Aberin, et al. v American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
Achziger v. IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Achziger v. IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
On January 14, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Achziger v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-05445-BHS (W.D. Wash.). The Plaintiff alleged that IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company failed to pay adequately for diminished value after a covered loss under its Washington insurance policy’s Comprehensive/Collision and/or UIM PD coverages. Final Approval was granted June 22, 2020, establishing the Settlement Fund of $5,212,600.00 to be paid to all Class Members who did not opt-out and who submitted a timely and valid Claim Form. Payments were issued on or about December 21, 2020.
IDS
Ahmed, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.
Ahmed, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.
On June 21, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Ahmed, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al., No. 5:15-cv-02057 (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California). The settlement provides for persons who received one or more automatic and/or prerecorded calls from HSBC between October 6, 2011, and January 18, 2019, regarding a mortgage loan owned and/or serviced by, on behalf of and/or in the name of HSBC, and who did not consent to receive such calls. Final approval was granted on December 30, 2019. All claims have been processed and all eligible class members have been paid.
On February 25, 2021, the court granted final approval to a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Aho, et al. v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc. et al., Case No. BC682490 (Superior Court for the State of California). The settlement provides for a fund of $1,290,000.00 to be paid to individuals that were employed by Jackson Hewitt Inc. or Tax Services of America, Inc. as a Tax Preparer or Supervisor within its company-owned operations between November 6, 2013, and October 9, 2020. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated wage and overtime laws, which Defendant denied. The Court has not determined whether Plaintiffs or Defendants are correct, and by reaching a settlement, the parties have agreed to the benefits as described in the Settlement Agreement. The Gross Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
aho
Akorn Securities Litigation
Akorn Securities Litigation
On December 1, 2017, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, In re Akron, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15 C 01994. The settlement provided for $24,000,000. Final approval was granted on February 14, 2019. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
akn
Alejandro Carrillo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Alejandro Carrillo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
On August 19, 2021 the Court entered an Order and Judgment in a class action Alejandro Carrillo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 18-cv-03095-PKC-JMW (In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York). The settlement provided Cash Awards, to be paid to all approved Class Members who entered into a "Buydown Agreement," sometimes also referred to as a "Buydown Deposit Agreement" or a "FHA/VA Interest Rate Buydown Plan" during the Class Period with Wells Fargo in connection with a residential real estate mortgage loan transaction concerning property located in the United States. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
ADC
DC, D.C., District of Columbia, Blocking Passage, DC Blocking Passage, D.C. Blocking Passage, District of Columbia Blocking Passage, Alexander v. DC, Alexander v. D.C., Alexander v. District of Columbia, Arrest
Allen v. Apache Corporation
Allen v. Apache Corporation
On August 1, 2022, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Allen, et al. v. Apache Corporation, Case No. 6:22-cv-00063-JAR (United States District Court for Eastern District of Oklahoma), for Defendant’s alleged failure to pay statutory interest on payments made for oil and gas production proceeds from oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $15,000,000.00. Final approval was granted on November 16, 2022. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
pxi
Allina ERISA Settlement
Allina ERISA Settlement
On November 21, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Judy Larson, et al. v. Allina Health System, et al., Case No. 17-cv-03835 (D. Minn.). The settlement provided payments for participants and beneficiaries of the Allina Health System 403(b) Retirements Savings Plan and the Allina 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan with balances between August 18, 2011 and November 21, 2019. Final approval was granted on May 22, 2020. All eligible class members have been paid.
ALH
Alta Mesa Settlement
Alta Mesa Settlement
On December 7, 2017, the Court preliminary approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Bollenbach Enterprises LP v. Oklahoma Energy Acquisitions LP, et al., Case No. 17-cv-00134-HE (W.D. Okla.) The settlement provided for $4,687,029 in cash benefits (subject to adjustments.) Final approval was granted on March 12, 2018, and the Settlement Proceeds were distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
ALT
Alternative Lifestyle Tank ("ALT") Settlement
Alternative Lifestyle Tank ("ALT") Settlement
On September 10, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Dan McKibben, et al. v John McMahon, et al., Case No. 14-cv-02171 (C.D. Cal.). The settlement provided payments for individuals who, between October 22, 2012 and March 31, 2018 were housed in the Alternative Lifestyle Tank of the West Valley Detention Center (a San Bernardino County jail). Final approval was granted on July 30, 2019. All eligible class members have been paid.
On September 12, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Carmack, et al. v. Amaya Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-01884-JHR-JS. The settlement provided for $5,750,000. Final approval was granted on December 21, 2018. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
asl
American Family Class Action PIP Settlement
American Family Class Action PIP Settlement
On December 30, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Folweiler Chiropractic v. American Family Insurance Company, Case No. 16-2-16112-0 (SEA). The settlement provides for Washington State healthcare providers who, from July 8, 2012 through December 23, 2019, submitted medical bills for payment, under the terms of an insured’s Personal Injury Protection or Medical Payments coverage, to American Family Insurance Company or American Family Mutual Insurance Company and had their bills reduced based on an explanation code P0041, as set out in the Explanation of Remittance form they received. Final approval was granted on February 19, 2020. All eligible class members have been paid.
On April 4, 2017, the Court granted final approval of the Settlement in a class action lawsuit, Harris, et al. v. Amgen Inc. et al., 2:07-cv-5442-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal.). The Settlement provided for $2,750,000.00. Settlement benefits were sent to all eligible class members.
AMG
angen
Andreas-Moses, et al. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company
Andreas-Moses, et al. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company
This is a lawsuit brought under New York Labor Law and asserts that The Hartford should have paid overtime wages for members of the Class and should have provided accurate wage statements. The Named Plaintiffs in this lawsuit are eight present and former Hartford employees, who allege that they were wrongly classified and not paid overtime compensation for their work at Hartford. The Class seeks unpaid overtime pay, liquidated damages, damages for failure to provide accurate wage statements and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Hartford denies that it owes the plaintiffs any overtime pay, and contends that plaintiffs’ duties made them exempt from overtime pay.
HFI
Angell, et al. v. GEICO Advantage Insurance Company, et al. (Regulatory Fees)
Angell, et al. v. GEICO Advantage Insurance Company, et al. (Regulatory Fees)
On May 13, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Smith v. Radisson Hospitality, Inc., Case No. 2021-CH-00177 (Cook County Cir Ct, Illinois). The settlement provided for $465,000. Final approval was granted on August 24, 2022, and Settlement benefits have been distributed to all eligible class members in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
RDN
radisson hospitality bipa, radisson settlement, radisson hospitality settlement, fingerprinting settlement, biometric information privacy act, smith v. radisson hospitality, smith v. radisson hospitality settlement, raddisson, raddison
Arellano v. Optum, Inc.
Arellano v. Optum, Inc.
On November 2, 2020, the Court entered an Order and Judgment in a class action, Arellano et al. v. Optum, Inc., et al., Case No. BC704125 (Superior Court of the State of California). The settlement provides for a fund of $139,542.71, to be paid to all “Aggrieved Employees”; non-exempt employees of Optum Services, Inc. who worked at OptumCare Medical Group facilities in California at any time between February 21, 2017 and January 10, 2020. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
aoi
optum, optumcare
Armstead v. VGW Malta Ltd., et al.
Armstead v. VGW Malta Ltd., et al.
On January 9, 2023, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgement in the class action, Armstead v. VGW Malta Ltd., et al., Case No. 2022-CI-00553 (Henderson County Circuit Court, Commonwealth of Kentucky). The Settlement provided monetary and prospective relief for all individuals who, in Kentucky (as reasonably determined by billing address information, IP address information, or other information furnished by VGW), spent $5.00 or more within a 24-hour period on Chumba Casino or Luckyland Slots, from March 17, 2017, through March 17, 2022. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
Atlantic Ambulance Corporation v. Cullum and Hitti
Atlantic Ambulance Corporation v. Cullum and Hitti
On March 29, 2019, the Court entered final order approving class action settlement, Atlantic Ambulance Corporation v. Cullum and Hitti, Docket No. MRS-L-264-12 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County). The Class alleged Atlantic Ambulance billed $14 for one-mile of transport not provided. The Settlement Class consisted of all Persons to whom Atlantic Ambulance’s Advanced Life Support unites responded or provided any services during the period January 1, 2007 through January 31, 2018, but not including Medicare or Medicaid patients, and not including those who have timely and effectively opted out of the Settlement Class and Settlement. Atlantic Ambulance paid the Settlement Class the sum of $130,000.00 in cash consideration for the dismissal of all claims. The settlement provided for a pro rata share of the settlement amount, net costs, fees and other expenses the Court approved. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
On January 25, 2019, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class and collective action lawsuit, Beltran, et al., v. InterExchange, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-03074-CMA-KMT (D. Colo.), alleging that the Defendants misrepresented the au pair stipend as a fixed amount, conspired to fix the au pair stipend at $195.75 per week, and that they violated federal, state, and local laws in doing so. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $65.5 million. Final approval was granted on July 18, 2019, and the Settlement funds has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
apc
Auction Houses Antitrust Litigation
Auction Houses Antitrust Litigation
Neil Zola and David Isaac oversaw the administration of the landmark $512 million Auction Houses settlement. The case, In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litig., No. 00 Civ. 0648 (S.D.N.Y) (LAK), involved allegations that Sotheby's and Christie's auction houses engaged in a price-fixing scheme in violation of antitrust laws. The class members were largely wealthy and well-educated, and many were represented during the administration process by counsel, since a large number of claims were in the thousands of dollars and some much higher than that. The settlement was unique in that claimants were awarded approximately 2.5 times their actual out of pocket damages. The notice program relied on direct mailings to almost every class member with a personalized claim form devised by Mr. Zola and Mr. Isaac that listed each transaction that a claimant made at Christie's and Sotheby's. To participate, claimants simply had to check the boxes agreeing to the transactions. Based on the streamline program that was designed, the take rate was nearly 50% in that matter.
AHA
Aveeno® Wash Settlement
Aveeno® Wash Settlement
On February 4, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, titled Langan, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut). The settlement class includes all individuals who purchased at least one of the covered products (Aveeno® Baby Wash and Shampoo and Aveeno® Baby Calming Comfort Bath) for personal, family or household purposes during the applicable class periods for each State. The Court granted final approval on July 12, 2019, and settlement checks were mailed to class members who submitted timely and valid claim forms.
On April 30, 2021, the Court approved the Babcock & Wilcox Ent., Inc. Securities Litigation NO.: 3:17-CV-00109 proposed Settlement of $19,500,000, Administrative Determination and Authorized the Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. The initial distribution occurred, and payments have been made to all authorized Claimants.
bab
Backgroundchecks.com Criminal Record Data Settlement
Backgroundchecks.com Criminal Record Data Settlement
On May 17, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Boskie, et al. v. Backgroundchecks.com, LLC, Case No. 2019CP3200824 (South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, County of Lexington). The settlement provides for injunctive relief if between September 8, 2014 and May 17, 2019, 1) information about a criminal record related to you (even if it did not result in a conviction) was in Defendant’s public record database, or 2) Defendant provided a report about you to a third party. Defendant’s database contains hundreds of millions of publicly available criminal records and aliases from county, state and federal agencies, courts and correctional institutions. Final approval was granted on October 31, 2019, and injunctive relief was entered.
On May 17, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Boskie, et al. v. Backgroundchecks.com, LLC, Case No. 2019CP3200824 (South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, County of Lexington). The settlement provides for prospective relief if Defendant Backgroundchecks.com provided a background check about you directly to HomeAdvisor, Inc. that contained a record that was something other than a conviction of a crime and the disposition of that record occurred more than seven years before the date of the report. Final approval was granted on October 31, 2019. All claims have been processed and all eligible class members have been paid.
BK2
Bank of America Genuine Title Settlement
Bank of America Genuine Title Settlement
On January 10, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Dobbins v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. SAG-17-0540. The settlement provided payments for all individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a federally related mortgage loan originated by Bank of America, N.A., for which Genuine Title provided a settlement service between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014. Final approval was granted on April 12, 2022. All eligible class members have been paid.
BOA
Bankhead v. First Advantage Settlement
Bankhead v. First Advantage Settlement
On September 19, 2019, the Court entered an Order and Judgment in a class action, Bankhead v. First Advantage Background Services Corp., Case No. 1:17-cv-02910-LMM-CCB (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division). The settlement provides for a fund of $1,975,000.00, to be paid to all approved Class Members whom the Defendant produced one or more reports which included one or more records older than seven years which included a term listed in Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement, in the disposition field from June 23, 2015 through January 27, 2019. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
On August 25, 2016, The Court approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, The City of Los Angeles, et al. v. Bankrate, Inc., et al., Case No. 9:14-cv-81323 (DMM). The settlement provided for $20,000,000.00. Final approval was granted on February 7, 2017. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
RAT
Barbanell-One Medical Group Inc., Settlement
Barbanell-One Medical Group Inc., Settlement
On November 12, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Barbanell, et al. v. One Medical Group, Inc., Case No. CGC-18-566232 (Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco), alleging that One Medical misrepresented to consumers that payment of the “Annual Membership Fee” is required to obtain medical care or services through One Medical offices when it is only optionally required to obtain access to add-on membership services. The settlement provided a gross settlement fund in the amount of $11,500,000. Final approval was granted on July 26, 2022. The net settlement fund was paid to all eligible Class Members who did not opt-out of the settlement. Payments were issued commencing on October 27, 2022.
B1M
Barbanell, One
Barclays LX Securities Litigation
Barclays LX Securities Litigation
On April 4, 2020, the court ordered the Final Distribution of the Settlement. The $27,000,000 Settlement Fund was established for the benefit of eligible Class Members who purchased or acquired American Depository Shares of Barclays PLC between August 2, 2011 and June 25, 2014, both dates inclusive. All claims were processed, and awards were issued to eligible claimants.
BDP
Barrett v. Nestlé USA, Inc.
Barrett v. Nestlé USA, Inc.
On March 20, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Barrett v. Nestle USA, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-167 (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Jonesboro Division). The settlement provides for current or former hourly-paid production employees who work or worked at the Nestlé processing factory located in Jonesboro, Arkansas, at any time between January 1, 2016 and July 1, 2018. The case website will be updated once the Court approves the settlement and as the administration progresses. Final approval was granted on July 10, 2019. All claims have been processed and all eligible class members have been paid.
BRT
Barrios, et al. v. The City of Chicago
Barrios, et al. v. The City of Chicago
On June 9, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Barrios, et al. v. The City of Chicago, Case No. 1:15-cv-02648 (N.D. Ill.) The settlement provided for cash benefits of $4,950,000.00 for owners of vehicles impounded by the Chicago Police Department from March 28, 2013, through August 1, 2015, where the City of Chicago contacted the lienholder of the vehicle rather than the owner. Final approval was granted on December 18, 2020, and the Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
mbc
Barron v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America
Barron v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America
The lawsuit alleges that TIAA failed to pay Named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees in Advisory Positions properly for all overtime hours they worked. The Plaintiffs allege that those in training for an Advisory Position role were misclassified as exempt from overtime and not paid properly for all hours worked in a Training Period during the Material Times.
TIA
Becton, Dickinson and Company Securities Litigation
Becton, Dickinson and Company Securities Litigation
The court ordered the Distribution on December 14, 2022, for the Bed Bath Beyond Securities Litigation in the Order Distributing Net Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants and Approving Cy Pres Recipient. The case distributed to all processed claims of eligible claimants that that fit the eligible Settlement definition.
BBB
Beezley v. Fenix Parts, Inc.
Beezley v. Fenix Parts, Inc.
On November 26, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved the securities class action of Beezley v. Fenix Parts, Inc., et al. The Settlement provided for $3.3 million in cash to resolve all claims in the Action. The Settlement Class consisted of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Fenix in Fenix’s initial public offering on May 14, 2015, and/or on the public market between May 14, 2015 and June 27, 2017, inclusive. Final approval of the Settlement was granted on August 7, 2020. All claims have been processed and the Net Settlement Fund was distributed to Authorized Claimants.
FNX
Belanger v. RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing
Belanger v. RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing
Plaintiff brought claims on behalf of all persons in the RoundPoint Settlement Class. Plaintiff alleges that when a borrower was required to have insurance for his or her property pursuant to a residential mortgage or home equity loan or line of credit, and evidence of acceptable coverage was not provided (for example, when the insurance policy did not exist or had lapsed), RoundPoint would place insurance in a manner such that RoundPoint allegedly received an unauthorized benefit. Plaintiff alleges further that RoundPoint did so primarily to receive other consideration from Great American or Willis of Ohio. Plaintiff also alleges that the way in which LPI policies were obtained and placed caused the premiums and the amount of coverage to be excessive. All Defendants expressly deny Plaintiff's allegations and assert their actions were and are fully authorized under the mortgage instruments and by law. They also expressly deny that they did anything wrong. There has been no court decision on the merits of this case and no finding that Defendants committed any wrongdoing.
RPM
Belin v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.
Belin v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.
On September 27, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Belin, et al. v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:19-cv-61530-AHS (S.D. Fla.), alleging that Defendants misled consumers to believe that limited benefit indemnity plans and ancillary products such as medical discount plans are major medical insurance. The settlement created a $27.5 million Settlement Fund. Final approval was granted on April 15, 2022, and the Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
HII
PCP Operating Company, LP, DCP Midstream, Oil and Gas Well, Oklahoma
The Court approved the distribution in the Order Approving Plaintiff's Unopposed Distribution Motion Approving The Distribution Of The Net Settlement Fund, dated May 5, 2020. The distribution of funds occurred on the following date/s: August 7, 2020, September 30, 2021 and October 31, 2022.
brb
Blanco v. Dispensing Dynamics
Blanco v. Dispensing Dynamics
On September 21, 2020, the Court granted final approval in a class action settlement, Blanco v. Dispensing Dynamics. The settlement provided for individuals who were employed by Dispensing Dynamics International, Inc. in California as a non-exempt, hourly employee at any time between June 16, 2017 and September 22, 2020. Final approval was granted on February 26, 2021 and the Gross Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
bdd
Blankenship, et al. v. HAPO Community Credit Union
Blankenship, et al. v. HAPO Community Credit Union
On October 21, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Blankenship, et al., v. HAPO Community Credit Union, Case No. 19-2-00922-03. The Settlement provided payments to all individuals in Washington who are or were members of HAPO and who between April 15, 2015 to September 13, 2021, were assessed one or more Relevant Fee by HAPO. Final approval was granted on February 3, 2023. All eligible class members have been paid.
HPO
Blasi Jr., et al. v. United Debt Services, LLC, et al.
Blasi Jr., et al. v. United Debt Services, LLC, et al.
On May 16, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Peter Blasi Jr., et al. v. United Debt Services, LLC, et al.The settlement class includes all Ohio citizens whose consumer reports were used and/or obtained by United Debt Services, LLC via prescreened marketing lists provided by AMG Lead Source from June 1, 2011 through June 30, 2014. Final approval was granted on November 5, 2019.All claims have been processed, and all eligible class members have been mailed settlement checks.
On April 9, 2021, the Court granted final approval to a settlement in Cassandra Boyle v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., Case No. 2020-L-00386 (Ill. Cir. Madison.) The settlement provided for cash benefits of more than $565,000.00. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
On December 10, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Angela Bradley v. Hornecker Cowling, LLP, Case No. 1:18-cv-01929-CL (D. OR.). The settlement provides for all individuals with an Oregon address to whom, during the period from November 5, 2017, through December 10, 2019, Defendants sent a letter attempting to collect a consumer debt letter and whose letter was not returned as undeliverable.
HCL
Brandewie v. Wal-Mart Stores Settlement Admin
Brandewie v. Wal-Mart Stores Settlement Admin
On July 16, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Brandewie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00965 (N.D. Ohio). The settlement provided for gift cards of at least $3.00, available on a first-come, first served basis. Final approval was granted on December 21, 2015, and settlement benefits were distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
BFM
Branford Manor Settlement, Branford Manor Settlement Trust, Branford Tenant Class Action, Groton Connecticut, Related Companies Class Action, Latasha Harris, Harris v Branford, Harris v Related Companies
Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation
Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation
On February 25, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved two more settlements, with Tyson and Pilgrim’s Pride, in the class action lawsuit, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, N.D. Ill. Case No. 1:16-cv-08637, joining the previously approved settlements with George’s, Peco, Amick, and Fieldale. The settlements provided $170,261,600 for all persons who purchased Broiler chicken directly from one of the Settling Defendants or their Co-Conspirators. Final Approval was granted on June 29, 2021, and the Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the Court’s February 11, 2022, Order Granting Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion for First Distribution of Net Settlement Proceeds.
BR3
BR3, brl
Bromley et al. v. SXSW, LLC et al.
Bromley et al. v. SXSW, LLC et al.
On September 30, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Maria Bromley and Kleber Pauta, et al v. SXSW, LLC and SXSW Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-439-LY (W.D. TX). The Class Representatives alleged, among other things, that SXSW improperly withheld monies paid by Plaintiffs and the Class for wristbands, tickets, passes, and badges to the 2020 South by Southwest Conference and Festivals, including tickets to attend the BBQ Crash Course and/or Taco Meet Up, after the City of Austin cancelled the event due to the COVID-19 pandemic. SXSW denied the Class Representatives’ allegations, denied all liability and culpability, and maintains that it has meritorious defenses. Final Settlement Approval was granted on February 18, 2022. SXSW compensated Class Members in accordance with Section III of the Settlement Agreement. Payments were issued on or about April 12, 2022.
ssw
Brown v. Transurban USA
Brown v. Transurban USA
On April 7, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Brown, et al. v. Transurban (USA), Inc., et al., Case No. 15-CV-00494-JCC-MSN (E.D.Va.). The settlement provided for a refund check of at least $10 and forgiveness for certain unpaid tolls and associated administrative fees. Final approval was granted on September 29, 2016, and settlement benefits were distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
TRS
Brut and Sure Voluntary Recall for Select Products
Brut and Sure Voluntary Recall for Select Products
On February 16, 2022, TCP HOT Acquisition LLC dba HRB Brands voluntarily recalled all lot numbers with expiration dates on or before August 2023 of specific Sure and Brut Aerosol Sprays to the consumer level due to the presence of benzene. While benzene was not an ingredient in any of the recalled products, review showed that unexpected levels of benzene came from the propellant that sprays the product out of the can. These products were owned and distributed by Helen of Troy Limited prior to June 7, 2021. The voluntary recall ended on November 15, 2022.
HOT
Brut-Sure
Bruzek v. Husky Energy Inc. and Superior Refining Company LLC
Bruzek v. Husky Energy Inc. and Superior Refining Company LLC
On August 6, 2021, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Bruzek v. Husky Energy Inc. and Superior Refining Company LLC. Case No. 3:18-cv-697-wmc (The United States District Court for Western District of Wisconsin), for Defendants’ alleged negligence, nuisance, trespass, and strict liability arising from the April 26, 2018 explosion and fire at the Superior Refinery in Superior, Wisconsin, and the resulting evacuation of the surrounding area. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $1,050,000.00. Final approval was granted on January 31, 2022. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
hsk
HSK, Husky, Superior, Bruzek, Husky Oil, Superior Refinery, oil settlement, oil explosion, oil and fire evacuation, Superior evacuation, Bruzek v. Husky Oil Operations LTD and Superior Refining Company LLC, Husky Oil Operations LTD, Superior Refining Company LLC, Superior Refining, Superior Refining explosion, Wisconsin Refinery explosion, Superior Refinery Settlement, JND, Superior Refinery explosion and fire, April 26, 2018, Evacuation Order, SRC Reimbursement Program
BTG International ERISA Settlement
BTG International ERISA Settlement
On September 23, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Diaz, et al., v. BTG International, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01664-JMY (E.D.P.A). The settlement provided payments for all current and former participants and beneficiaries (excluding Defendants and their Immediate Family Members) of the Plan at any time between April 17, 2013 and November 20, 2018. Final approval was granted on January 21, 2021. All eligible class members have been paid.
btg
Buescher, et al. v. Brenntag North America, Inc.
Buescher, et al. v. Brenntag North America, Inc.
On April 8, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Buescher, et al. v. Brenntag North America, Inc., et al. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 20-cv-00147-JMG. The Settlement provided payments for Class Members who participant in or were a beneficiary of the Brenntag USA Profit Sharing Plan, and each of its predecessor plans or successor plans, individually and collectively, and any trust created under such plans, during the period from January 8, 2014 to April 8, 2021. Final approval was granted on August 20, 2021. All eligible class members have been paid.
BNA
ERISA, settlement
Bumble Boost Settlement
Bumble Boost Settlement
On December 18, 2020, the Court granted final approval to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, King et al. v. Bumble Trading, Inc. et al. The case alleged that Bumble’s Terms & Conditions fail to notify subscribers of their legal right to cancel their Boost subscription and obtain a refund within three business days of purchase in violation of certain consumer protection laws that may apply to all of Bumble’s Boost users nationwide. The case also alleges that for certain users in California, Bumble’s auto-renewal practices violate California law. Bumble vigorously denies these allegations and does not admit fault. Distribution has occurred per the Settlement Agreement.
BTI
Bunch v. Prinsco, Inc.
Bunch v. Prinsco, Inc.
On October 12, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Bunch v. Prinsco, Inc., Case No. 2020-CH-40 (Ill. Cir. Livingston County). The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Prinsco Inc. violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) by requiring that employees working at Defendant’s facility provide their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information for timekeeping and/or attendance purposes without first having a written policy and obtaining a written release. Final Approval was granted March 1, 2022, establishing the Settlement Fund of $85,250.00 to be paid to all Class Members who submitted a timely and valid Claim Form. Payments were issued on or about May 6, 2022.
PRS
Burger TCPA Settlement
Burger TCPA Settlement
On January 17, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Madeleine Yates v. Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. and Vibes Media, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-09219 (N.D. Ill). The settlement provided two $5 vouchers to all Class Members who submitted a valid claim form. Final approval was granted on April 14, 2021. All claims have been processed and all eligible Class Members have received their settlement vouchers.
YAC
C&K Trucking Settlement
C&K Trucking Settlement
On February 22, 2023, the Court entered Order in a class action C&K Trucking Settlement, Case No. Case No. 1:20-CV-04305. (In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division). The Settlement provided for monetary awards. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
On January 17, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Petersen et al. v. Costco Wholesale Co. et al., Civil Action No. CV-13-01292 (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division). This settlement only applied to California class members. The settlement provided non-economic damages and economic damages for individuals who consumed Berry Mix purchased at a Costco in California and (a) received a Hepatitis A vaccination or an IG injection between May 31 and June 13, 2013 and (b) were not immune to Hepatitis A on the date of consumption due to an earlier Hepatitis A vaccination or infection. Final approval was granted on September 26, 2019. All claims have been processed and all eligible class members have been paid.
pco
Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
On March 2, 2021, the Court entered an Order and Judgment in a class action, Casebeer and Patel v. Darktrace, Inc. Case No. 505263/2020 (Supreme Court of the State of New York). The settlement provides for a fund of $1,950,000.00, to be paid to all approved Class Member who were employed as a Business Development Executive, Sales Development Representative, or Inside Sales Representative (collectively, “Inside Sales Representatives”) in the State of California between May 28, 2015 and September 30, 2019 and nationwide between May 28, 2016 and September 30, 2019. “Aggrieved Employees”; that submitted valid claims. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
pdi
Cathedral Energy Overtime Lawsuit
Cathedral Energy Overtime Lawsuit
This lawsuit is about whether Cathedral failed to pay its Flowback and Production Testing Operators for all of their overtime pay. In particular, the lawsuit alleges that Cathedral: 1) failed to include all compensation in the overtime rates; and 2) failed to properly calculate the number of overtime hours worked each week. Cathedral Energy denies that it did anything wrong and intends to defend itself through the course of this case, including appeal.
CAT
Cecil-BP Settlement
Cecil-BP Settlement
On September 5, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in Litigation alleging that BP America ("Defendant") underpaid royalties on Oklahoma wells where Defendant (or a predecessor or affiliate of Defendant) is or was the operator or, as a non-operator, separately marketed gas. The settlement provided for $147,000,000.00 in cash plus Future Benefits with an estimated value of no less than $35,000,000. Final approval was granted on November 19, 2018, and the Gross Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
GMP
Chapman v. General Motors LLC General Motors Fuel Pump Litigation Fuel Pump Litigation Fuel Pump Class Action General Motors Fuel Pump Class Action GM Fuel Pump Class Action General Motors Fuel Pump Litigation GM Fuel Pump Litigation Chevrolet Fuel Pump Litigation Chevrolet Class Action Silverado Class Action Silverado Litigation GMC Class Action GMC Litigation Sierra Class Action Sierra Litigation
Chapman v. GEICO
Chapman v. GEICO
On November 2, 2021, the Court granted final approval to a settlement in Jeffrey Chapman, et al., v. GEICO Casualty Company, et al., Case No. 49D01-1905-PL-018436 (Ind. Super. Marion.) The settlement provided for cash benefits of $821,660.00. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
gcc
Charles Opperman v. IML Labels Chicago, Inc.
Charles Opperman v. IML Labels Chicago, Inc.
On October 12, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Charles Opperman v. IML Labels Chicago, Inc., Case No. 2021L000065 (Ill. Cir. DuPage) The settlement provided for $117,000.00. Final approval was granted on January 11, 2022, and the Settlement benefits have been distributed to all eligible class members in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
iml
fingerprinting settlement, Charles Opperman v. IML Labels Chicago, Opperman v. IML Labels Chicago settlement, IML settlement, Opperman settlement, IML biometrics settlement, JND, biometric identifiers settlement, biometric information settlement, BIPA settlement, Illinois BIPA settlement, DuPage County, IML lawsuit, IML Labels Chicago, Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
Chavez v. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital
Chavez v. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital
On December 12, 2018 the Court preliminarily approved the settlement in the matter of Chavez v. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital (case no. 12-2-50575-9). The case included all registered nurses who worked at least one hourly nursing shift at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital at Pasco from June 25, 2009 through March 10, 2013 with respect to claims for unpaid wages for missed meals and rest periods during the class period. Final approval was granted by the Court on March 1, 2019. All eligible class members have been paid.
On January 13, 2021, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Chieftain Royalty Company v. SM Energy Company, Case No. 18-cv-01225-J (The United States District Court for Western District of Oklahoma), for Defendant’s alleged underpayment of royalty due Plaintiff and Class Members on production of gas and its constituents from the Class Wells. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $10,000,000.00. Final approval was granted on April 27, 2021. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
csm
Chieftain v. BP
Chieftain v. BP
On November 23, 2021, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Chieftain Royalty Company, et al v. BP America Production Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-00054-JFH-JFJ (United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma), for Defendant’s alleged failure to pay statutory interest on payments made outside the time periods set forth in the Production Revenue Standards Act, 52 O.S. § 570.1, et seq. for oil and gas production proceeds from oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $15,000,000.00. Final approval was granted on March 2, 2022, and the settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
BPI
Oklahoma Oil and Gas Well
Chieftain-Marathon Settlement
Chieftain-Marathon Settlement
On December 17, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in Litigation alleging that Marathon Oil Company ("Defendant") failed to pay statutory interest on payments made outside the time periods set forth in the PRSA for oil and gas production proceeds for oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. The settlement provided for $14,950,000.00 in cash, plus Future Benefits valued at $17.1 million. Final approval was granted on March 8, 2019, and the Gross Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
cms
Chieftain-Newfield Settlement
Chieftain-Newfield Settlement
On December 17, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a Settlement in a class action lawsuit, Chieftain Royalty Company v. Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-00336-KEW (E.D. Okla.). The settlement provided for $19,500,000 in cash plus certain future benefits ("Future Benefits"), which are estimated by Plaintiff to have a net present value of at least $12,000,000. Final approval was granted on March 3, 2020, and the Net Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
CNE
Chiou v. Sumo Logic
Chiou v. Sumo Logic
On February 25, 2021 the Arbitrator entered a Final Award in a collective action Chiou, Falter, and Saldivar v Sumo Logic, Inc., Case No. 1220065681. The settlement provided for monetary rewards for individuals who were employed by Sumo Logic, Inc., as an exempt (i.e., salary paid) Sales Development Representative at any time between October 28, 2015 and October 28, 2019 and/or as an exempt Mid-Market Role between October 28, 2015 and May 21, 2020. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
csl
Chippewa Made in USA Settlement
Chippewa Made in USA Settlement
On March 12, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Djoric v. Justin Brands, Inc., Case No. BC574927 (Cal.) The settlement provided $25.00 cash or a $50.00 discount voucher per eligible product. Final approval was granted on July 31, 2018, and settlement benefits were subsequently issued to claimants whose claims were determined to be eligible.
JBI
Christopher Dixon v. Grunt Style, LLC
Christopher Dixon v. Grunt Style, LLC
On March 4, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Christopher Dixon v. Grunt Style, LLC, Case No. 2019 CH 01981 (Circuit Court, Cook County Illinois, Chancery Div.). The settlement provides for $450,000 for the benefit of the Settlement Class.
DGS
Christopher v. Residence Mutual Insurance Company (RMIC)
Christopher v. Residence Mutual Insurance Company (RMIC)
The Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Christopher v. Residence Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. CIVDS1711860 (San Bernardino County Sup. Court). The settlement provides for all current and former Residence Mutual Insurance Company (“RMIC”) policyholders who made a claim under a Homeowner’s Insurance policy issued by RMIC for covered dwelling damage at a covered residence premises located within the State of California in which: (1) RMIC determined that Profit and Overhead was part of the repair or replacement of the damage; (2) RMIC estimated the amount of Profit and Overhead; and (3) RMIC did not pay the Profit and Overhead until and unless it was incurred between March 9, 2013 and January 1, 2019.
Do nothing and you will receive your share for the general class claims. However, if you did not wish to receive any settlement payment for this class action, you must have opted out by October 19, 2020. If you wish to object, you must have notified the Court and the Claims Administrator by October 19, 2020.
The Court hearing to decide whether to provide final approval of the Settlement has been rescheduled to February 5, 2021 at 10 a.m. PDT. A new date and time will be posted here if the Final Approval Hearing is continued to another date.
On September 6, 2023, the Court entered an Order in a class action, Clayborne v. Chevron Case No. 4:19-cv-07624-JSW-KAW, (In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California). The settlement provided for a fund of $1,925,000 to be paid to all approved Class Members who were employed as hourly workers by contractors at Chevron’s California refineries from September 20, 2015, through February 22, 2023. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
CVN
Refinery Settlement, Chevron Refinery Settlement, Newtron Refinery Settlement, Newtron, Newtron Settlement, Chevron and Newtron Settlement, Chevron and Newtron Refinery Settlement, Clayborne v. Chevron, Clayborne vs. Chevron, Clayborne v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. et al., Clayborne vs. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. et al., Chevron Wage Settlement, Chevron Refinery Wage Settlement
JND’s CEO Jennifer Keough oversaw the administration of the largest Government class action settlement in U.S. history. In Cobell v. Salazar, No. 96 CV 1285 (TFH) (D. D.C.), which settled for $3.4 billion, Ms. Keough worked with the U.S. Government to implement the administration program responsible for identifying and providing notice to the two distinct but overlapping settlement classes. As part of the notice outreach program, Ms. Keough participated in multiple town hall meetings held at Indian reservations located across the country. Due to the efforts of the outreach program, over 80% of all class members were provided notice. Additionally, Ms. Keough played a role in creating the processes for evaluating claims and ensuring the correct distributions were made. Under Ms. Keough’s supervision, the processing team processed over 480,000 claims forms to determine eligibility. Less than one half of one percent of all claim determinations made by the processing team were appealed. Ms. Keough was called upon to testify before the Senate Committee for Indian Affairs, where Senator Jon Tester of Montana praised her work in connection with notice efforts to the American Indian community when he stated: “Oh, wow. Okay… the administrator has done a good job, as your testimony has indicated, [discovering] 80 percent of the whereabouts of the unknown class members.” Additionally, when evaluating the Notice Program, Judge Thomas F. Hogan concluded (July 27, 2011):
…that adequate notice of the Settlement has been provided to members of the Historical Accounting Class and to members of the Trust Administration Class…. Notice met and, in many cases, exceeded the requirements of F.R.C.P. 23(c)(2) for classes certified under F.R.C.P. 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3). The best notice practicable has been provided class members, including individual notice where members could be identified through reasonable effort. The contents of that notice are stated in plain, easily understood language and satisfy all requirements of F.R.C.P. 23(c)(2)(B).
CIT
Coleman v. CubeSmart
Coleman v. CubeSmart
Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit against CubeSmart ("Defendant") alleging that it violated Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") and various state laws by relating to monies individuals paid for participating in the Great American stored property insurance program. Defendant maintains that it did not violate FDUTPA and that individuals agreed to pay for the Great American Insurance and that they received the insurance coverage that they paid for. The parties have agreed to settle all claims about these payments that individuals made for their Great American Insurance policy.
cgh
CGH, common ground healthcare, common ground, common, risk corridors, ACA, Affordable Care Act, Qualified Health Plans, Health, Health insurance
comScore Securities Litigation Settlement
comScore Securities Litigation Settlement
On January 9th, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, FRESNO COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION , et al. v. COMSCORE, INC., et al., Case No: 1:16-cv-01820-JGK. The settlement provided for $ 110,000,000. Final approval was granted on June 7, 2018. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
com
Connolly v. Umpqua Bank Settlement
Connolly v. Umpqua Bank Settlement
A class action lawsuit entitled Connolly v. Umpqua Bank, Case No. 2:15-cv-00517-TSZ, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle (the “Lawsuit”). The Lawsuit claims that Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a-1681x, by procuring background and credit checks without complying with certain aspects of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2). Defendant denies the claims, has asserted numerous defenses to the action, and denies that class certification is required or appropriate.
UMP
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
On April 27, 2021, the court granted final approval to a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Georgina Contreras v. Monterey Fish Company, Inc., Case No. 19CV004356 (Superior Court for the State of California). The settlement provides for a fund of $110,000.00 to be paid to individuals that were employed by Monterey Fish Company. This Lawsuit was filed on October 25, 2019 on behalf of all persons who are employed or have been employed by Monterey in the State of California. The operative complaint alleges class-wide claims for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and penalties pursuant to Labor Code § 2699, et seq. Defendant denies Plaintiff’s claims, and asserts that it has complied with all of its legal obligations to its employees. The Court has not determined whether Plaintiffs or Defendants are correct, and by reaching a settlement, the parties have agreed to the benefits as described in the Settlement Agreement. The Gross Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
On September 29, 2021, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Cooper Clark Foundation v. Oxy U.S. Inc. Case No. 2016-CV-000039 (Grant County District Court, Kansas), alleging that the Defendant breached an implied covenant to market in the underlying leases by taking deductions from royalties and not basing royalty payments on the highest arms’-length sales price. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $7,500,000.00. Final approval was granted on December 8, 2021. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
OXY
Royalty owner, Kansas Oil and Gas Well
Coppertone Voluntary Recall for Select Products
Coppertone Voluntary Recall for Select Products
On September 30, 2021, Coppertone, which is owned by Beiersdorf, announced they were recalling specific lots of five Coppertone aerosol sunscreen spray products manufactured between the dates of January 10, 2021 and June 15, 2021 to the consumer level due to the presence of benzene. While benzene was not an ingredient in any of the recalled products, review showed that unexpected levels of benzene came from the propellant that sprays the product out of the can. The voluntary recall ended on November 15, 2022.
SNS
Corker, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al.
Corker, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al.
Several settlements were reached in a class action lawsuit, Corker, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00290-RSL (United States District Court for the Western District of Washington), about the alleged mislabeling of coffee as originating from the Kona region. The settlements provided for cash benefits totaling $41,180,750.00. The net settlement proceeds have been distributed to participating members of a Settlement Class comprising all persons and entities who, between February 27, 2015, and July 31, 2023, farmed Kona coffee in the Kona District and then sold their Kona coffee.
KFE
Kona Coffee Farmers Settlement
Costco Fax Settlement
Costco Fax Settlement
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corporation ("Costco"). The lawsuit claims Costco sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Court in charge of the case is the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (the "Court"), and the case is known as The Backer Law Firm, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 4:15-CV-00327-SRB. The Court did not decide in favor of the Class or the Defendant. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. That way, they avoid the cost of a trial, and the people affected will get compensation. The Class Representative and the attorneys think the settlement is best for everyone who is in the Class.
CS2
Cowan v. Devon Energy
Cowan v. Devon Energy
On September 21, 2022, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Cowan v. Devon Energy Corporation, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00220-JAR (United States District Court for Eastern District of Oklahoma), for Defendant's alleged failure to pay statutory interest on allegedly late payments under Oklahoma law. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $25,000,000.00. Final approval was granted on January 17, 2023. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
On April 14, 2020, the Court approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Cory Horton v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No.: 13cv307-JAH-WVG (U.S. District Court, Southern District of California). The settlement provided for $24,150,000.00. Final approval was granted on October 13, 2020. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
cav
Credit Acceptance Securities Settlement
Credit Acceptance Securities Settlement
On September 19, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit Credit Acceptance Securities Litigation, Case No. 20-cv-12698. The settlement provided for $12,000,000. The Settlement was approved by the Court on December 16, 2022. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
On December 20, 2017, a settlement was reached in a lawsuit alleging that the Croman Respondents engaged in tenant harassment, fraud, and other unlawful practices directed at rent-regulated tenants. The settlement required Croman to pay $8 million into the Croman Tenant Restitution Fund, to be distributed among eligible tenants. The net settlement amount was distributed to eligible tenants between December 2018 and September 2013. Additionally, policies and procedures were created to notify rent-regulated tenants and their permitted occupants of certain basic rights and ensure Croman’s future compliance with the Consent Decree and applicable laws, including rent regulation laws.
CRF
Cruz v. Island Hospitality
Cruz v. Island Hospitality
On August 7, 2020, the Court entered an Order and Judgment in an action, Karen Cruz v. Island Hospitality Management III LLC, et al., Case No. 19CV353655 (Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County). The settlement provides for a fund of $300,000.00, to be paid to persons who worked for Island Hospitality Management LLC, Island Hospitality Management II LLC, Island Hospitality Management III LLC, and Island Hospitality Management IV LLC (“Defendants”) in California at some point between June 13, 2018 to October 6, 2020. Settlement payments were distributed on November 17, 2020 in accordance with the terms of the settlement. Payments in this matter have become void and this matter has been closed.
cih
Cruz v. Jame Roll Form Products
Cruz v. Jame Roll Form Products
On May 24, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Sebastian Lazaro Cruz v. Jame Roll Form Products d/b/a Venus Processing & Storage, Inc., Case No. 2021CH04132 (The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois – Chancery Division). The settlement provided for cash benefits of $292,981.70. Final approval was granted on January 25, 2023. In accordance with the terms of the settlement, benefit checks have been distributed to all eligible class members, and funds from uncashed checks have been transferred to the Unclaimed Property Division of the Illinois Treasurer’s Office.
JRF
Cruz v. Jame Roll Form Products, Cruz bipa settlement, jame roll bipa settlement, cruz fingerprint settlement, jame roll fingerprint settlement, cruz biometrics settlement, jame roll biometrics settlement, Cruz v. Jame Roll settlement, Cruz v. Jame Roll class action, Cruz v. Jame Roll Form Products class action
Cuenca v. Kaiser Permanente
Cuenca v. Kaiser Permanente
On June 29, 2021, the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging that the Kaiser-related Entities discriminated against Hispanic or Latinx employees. The settlement provided for a Gross Settlement Fund in the amount of $7,372,586.00. Final approval was granted on October 28, 2021, and the settlement fund was distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
RAY
Jeremy Raymo et al v FCA US LLC and Cummins Inc
Dodge Ram 2500
Dodge Ram 3500
Cummins 6.7 Diesel Engine
Truck Washcoat Defect
Truck Flash Defect
Cummins 2500 Diesel Truck Settlement
Cummins 3500 Diesel Truck Settlement
CVB Securities Settlement
CVB Securities Settlement
On March 13, 2017 the Court entered an Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement in the class action Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256-CAS (In the United States District Court, Central District of California, Western Division). The Settlement will resolved allegations that Defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose certain material facts about CVB's financial results during the Settlement Class Period. Defendants agreed to pay a total of $6,200,000.00 (“Settlement Amount”) to settle this Action, inclusive of attorney’s fees, class representative awards, administration costs and monetary awards to all Participating Claimants. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
cvb
D'Amario, et al. v. University of Tampa
D'Amario, et al. v. University of Tampa
On June 3, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, D’Amario, et al. v. University of Tampa, Case No. 7:20-cv-03744-CS. The settlement provided payments for all individuals who were a UT student who paid or on whose behalf payment was made to UT for Spring 2020 Semester and who remained enrolled as of March 1, 2020. Those included in the Settlement received a pro rata (meaning equal) portion of the Settlement Fund, which was based on the total out-of-pocket amount of tuition and fees (excluding room and board) paid for the Spring 2020 Semester. Final Approval was granted on October 18, 2022. All eligible class members have been paid.
DUT
UT Settlement
Dargoltz v. Fashion Marketing & Merchandising Group, Inc.
Dargoltz v. Fashion Marketing & Merchandising Group, Inc.
On July 16, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Dargoltz v. Fashion Marketing & Merchandising Group, Inc. Case No. 2021-009781-CA-01. The settlement provided for $3,500,000 in cash and the equivalent of $6,000,000 in vouchers. Final approval was granted on October 26, 2021. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
PSS
Bankhead v Pacesetter Steel Service Settlement,
Bankhead v Pacesetter Settlement,
Pacesetter Biometrics Settlement,
Biometrics Settlement,
Fingerprint Settlement,
Biometric Information Settlement,
Illinois Biometric Settlement,
Illinois Fingerprint Settlement
DASA-EnerVest-SM Energy Settlement
DASA-EnerVest-SM Energy Settlement
On October 30, 2019, the Court granted preliminary approval to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, DASA Investment, Inc. v. Enervest Operating LLC. et al., Case No. 6:18-cv-00083-SPS (E.D.Okla.). The settlement provided for cash benefits of $8,000,000.00 and future benefits estimated to have a net present value of at least $7,000,000.00. Final approval was granted on March 23, 2020, and the Gross Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
das
DASA, Investment, Enervest, Operating
David DeCapua v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company
David DeCapua v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company
On September 3, 2021, the Court entered final approval of the class action settlement agreement in David DeCapua v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Metropolitan P&C”), Case No. 18-cv-00590-WES. The settlement provided pro rata payments to persons within the United States who may have received a text message on or after May 1, 2018 sent by or on behalf of a Metropolitan P&C former employee which allegedly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
MET
TCPA, MET
David L. DeFrees, et al. v. John C. Kirkland, et al. and U.S. Aerospace, Inc.
David L. DeFrees, et al. v. John C. Kirkland, et al. and U.S. Aerospace, Inc.
On April 10, 2018, The Court approved a proposed derivative settlement in a class action lawsuit, David L. Defrees, et al. v. John C. Kirkland, et al., and U.S. Aerospace, Inc., Lead Case Number: CV 11-04272 JLS (SPx). The settlement provided for $12,200,000.00. Final approval was granted on July 26, 2018. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
kir
Davis Total Loss Settlement
Davis Total Loss Settlement
On Thursday, October 12, 2023, the Court approved the settlement in the class action lawsuit, Janet Davis, et al. v. GEICO Casualty Company, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02477. Plaintiffs alleged that GEICO Casualty Company, GEICO Advantage Insurance Company, GEICO Choice Insurance Company, GEICO General Insurance Company and GEICO Secure Insurance Company (“Defendants”) breached their contracts (Automobile Insurance Policies) by failing to fully pay Plaintiffs and other Ohio insureds who submitted physical damage claims for their vehicles during the Class Period, and which resulted in a Total Loss Claim Payment. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay full Sales Tax and/or Transfer Fees following a total loss. Defendants maintain that they complied with the terms of the Automobile Insurance Policies and applicable law and deny that they acted wrongfully or unlawfully and continue to deny all material allegations. The settlement provided payments for Settlement Class Members who timely submitted a valid Claim Form:
1. Sales Tax on the adjusted value of their totaled vehicle at the Ohio state sales tax rate applicable at the time of their loss (less any amount in sales tax originally included in the total-loss claim payment) reduced by each claimant’s proportional share of Class Counsel Fees and/or court-awarded costs; and
2. Applicable Transfer Fees (less any amount in Transfer Fees originally included in the total-loss claim payment), reduced by each claimant’s proportional share of Class Counsel Fees and court-awarded costs.
To qualify, you must have submitted a timely valid Settlement Claim Form by September 21, 2023. All eligible claimants have been paid and the settlement administration has been completed.
GIO
Day v. Southern Illinois Hardware
Day v. Southern Illinois Hardware
On August 3rd, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Day v. Southern Illinois Hardware, Case No. 2021 L 6. Plaintiffs allege that Southern Illinois Hardware maintained the unauthorized collection, storage, and dissemination of handprint data, allegedly collected through hand-scanning timekeeping technology. Southern Illinois Hardware has agreed to create a Settlement Fund of $156,600 for Class Members. All Class Members who submit a valid and timely Claim Form are entitled to receive payment from the Settlement Fund. If the Settlement is approved, each Class Member could receive up to nine-hundred dollars ($900.00).
SIH
Hardware, Hand-scanning, Southern Illinois Hardware, Timekeeping, Handprint data
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Class Action Settlement
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Class Action Settlement
Jennifer Keough and Neil Zola played major roles in the administration of the $10+ billion settlement in In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, No. 2179 (MDL) (E.D. La.). The settlement administration was the largest such program ever developed. Under the guidance of Court-appointed Claims Administrator Patrick Juneau, there were thousands of team members providing notice, handling claims intake, handling phone calls, reviewing claims and making payment to affected class members throughout the country.
Ms. Keough and Mr. Zola played key roles in the formation of the claims program for the evaluation of economic and property damage claims. Additionally, they built and supervised the back-office mail and processing center in Hammond, Louisiana, staffed with over 250 people, which was the hub of the program. The Hammond center was visited several times by Pat Juneau -- as well as by the District Court Judge and Magistrate -- who described it as a shining star of the program. Ms. Keough and Mr. Zola also oversaw teams dedicated to handling claimants telephone inquiries and the distribution of settlement proceeds.
DPH
Deitrich Trust A v. Enerfin Resources Settlement
Deitrich Trust A v. Enerfin Resources Settlement
On April 12, 2022, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Joanne Harris Deitrich Trust A v. Enerfin Resources I Limited Partnership, et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00084-KEW (United States District Court for Eastern District of Oklahoma), for Defendant’s alleged failure to pay statutory interest on payments made outside the time periods set forth in the Production Revenue Standards Act, 52 O.S. § 570.1, et seq. for oil-and-gas production proceeds from oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $4,100,000.00 plus Future Benefits. Final approval was granted on July 25, 2022, and the settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
NFN
Del Toro Lopez v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Del Toro Lopez v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs claimed that Uber’s policies and practices regarding compensation and promotion violated federal and California state laws by unlawfully discriminating against women and Latino/Latina/Hispanic, African American/Black, Native American, Alaskan Native, and/or multiracial individuals (who are in part one of the foregoing races) who work or worked for Uber in a Covered Software Engineering Position, and that there was harassment or a hostile work environment for those employees. The lawsuit asked the Court to require Uber to provide damages, penalties, and other compensation to those employees (or former employees). The lawsuit also sought to compel Uber to change its policies and procedures so that such conduct does not happen in the future.
UBR
Delgado v. America’s Auto Auction Chicago, Inc.
Delgado v. America’s Auto Auction Chicago, Inc.
On January 13, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Delgado v. America’s Auto Auction Chicago, Inc., Case No. 2019-CH-04164 (Illinois Circuit Court for Cook County). The Settlement provides a cash payment and two years of dark web identity theft monitoring services for all persons who, at any time between March 29, 2014 to April 30, 2019, were required to provide their hand scan for timekeeping purposes to America’s Auto Auction.
AMA
Delkener v. Cottage Health Settlement
Delkener v. Cottage Health Settlement
The Class Representative contends that Cottage Health System, Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital, Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital, InSync Computer Solutions, Inc., CIO Solutions, Inc. and CIO Solutions, LP violated the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California Civil Code §§56, et seq. (“CMIA”), by placing the Settlement Class Members’ confidential medical information on a computer server that was accessible without log-in credentials, passwords, or encryption, at times between October 26, 2015 and November 8, 2015 without login credentials, passwords or encryption and allegedly releasing that confidential medical information.
CHI
DG Infant Acetaminophen Settlement
DG Infant Acetaminophen Settlement
On December 2, 2021 the Court entered an Order and Judgment in a class action David Levy v. DOLGENCORP, LLC, DOLLAR GENERAL CORP., AND DG RETAIL, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-1037-TJC-MCR (In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville division). The settlement provided both injunctive relief (by changing the language on the labeling/packaging of DG Health Infants’ Acetaminophen) and monetary relief (Cash Awards, to be paid to all approved Class Members who timely submitted a valid claim). All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
dlg
DLG, DG, Infant, Acetaminophen, DG Health, DG Infant, Dollar General, Levy, David Levy, Dolgencorp
Dibb v. AllianceOne
Dibb v. AllianceOne
On July 31, 2017, final approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Dibb, et al. v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-05835-RJB (W.D. Wash.), alleging that the Defendant was sending NODs to collect dishonored checks that did not comply with Washington law. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $1,900,000.00. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
DAO
Diel v. Salal Credit Union
Diel v. Salal Credit Union
On February 28, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement in the class action lawsuit titled Diel, et al. v. Salal Credit Union (Superior Court of the State of Washington – County of King). The Class includes all Washington residents who were Salal Credit Union members who at any point from April 15, 2015 through November 18, 2019 incurred an overdraft fee or an insufficient funds (“NSF”) fee for a transaction when the amount of the ledger balance shown in the account’s record was equal to or greater than the amount of the transaction. The Court granted final approval of the Settlement on August 28, 2020. After the Settlement became final, each eligible Class Member received a proportional share of the net Settlement Fund.
DVS
NSF, insufficient funds, credit union, King County, overdraft fees
District Council #16 Northern California Health and Welfare Trust Fund, et al. v. Sutter Health, et al.
District Council #16 Northern California Health and Welfare Trust Fund, et al. v. Sutter Health, et al.
On January 6, 2015, a class action lawsuit (District Council #16 Northern California Health and Welfare Trust Fund, et al. v. Sutter Health, et al., Case No. RG15-753647 (State Court Cal. Super. Alameda)) was filed in which the plaintiffs alleged that Sutter Health engaged in fraudulent, unlawful, and unfair business practices by submitting and receiving payment on bills for supposed "anesthesia services" that were not rendered, were double-billed, and were described in a materially misleading manner, resulting in self-funded payers paying more for anesthesia services than they should have. This lawsuit is pending. The Court has not yet decided who will win or lose this case.
DSH
DSH, Sutter Health, Sutter, DC16, District Council
Doan v. CORT Furniture Rental Corporation, et al.
Doan v. CORT Furniture Rental Corporation, et al.
On March 6, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Doan v. CORT Furniture Rental Corporation, et al., No. 30-2017-00904345 (Cal. Super. Orange). The Plaintiff alleged that CORT Business Services Corporation (“CORT”) unlawfully requested and recorded certain personal identification information (such as postal addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers and/or ZIP Codes) from customers using a credit card to pay for merchandise. Final Approval was granted June 29, 2018, which caused JND to distribute a $40.00 merchandise voucher to Settlement Class Members who did not choose to submit a timely and valid Opt-Out request, per the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Distribution of vouchers began on or around September 28, 2018.
CRT
Dole Securities Litigation
Dole Securities Litigation
On November 15, 2021, the court ordered to grant Lead Plaintiff's motion to Compete the Administration of the Net Settlement Fund. The Settlement less any fees and expenses was distributed to the eligible class on October 26, 2018 and December 15, 2020. The eligible class consisted of all persons and entities who sold the common stock of Dole Food Company, Inc. during the period from January 2, 2013 through October 31, 2013, inclusive, or on November 1, 2013 where those shares were sold on the open market and were not held as of the closing of the Take-Private Transaction on that date, and who were damaged thereby.
On June 28, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Amanda Dougherty v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., Case No. 17-2-05619-1 (Superior Court for the State of Washington, Clark County). The settlement provides for personswhose job application was processed by BBSI and BBSI conducted a background check using one of the Challenged Disclosure Forms at any time from August 26, 2013 to January 15, 2019. The case website will be updated once the Court approves the settlement and as the administration progresses. Final approval was granted on November 8, 2019. All claims have been processed and all eligible class members have been paid.
BBS
Duarte, et al. v. United States Metals Refining Company, et al.
Duarte, et al. v. United States Metals Refining Company, et al.
MRF
Carteret, New Jersey, U.S. Metals, Smelter site, USMR, Metal refining
Duran v. DirecTV
Duran v. DirecTV
On August 21, 2020, the Court approved a settlement in multiple class action wage and hour lawsuits involving DirecTV LLC (Judician Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4850, California Superior Court, Santa Clara County). The settlement includes all current and former employees of DirecTV LLC who held the position(s) of Tech, Light Duty B; Installer; Installer 1; Installer 2; Installer 3; Installer 2P; Installer 3P; Tech, Light Duty; Tech, Field Operations; Tech, Quality Control; Tech, Quality Control-Beta; Tech, Service; Tech, Master; Tech, Installation; Field Operation Technician [OCCP West]; or Premises Technician (Counties) [CWA09] in California from December 18, 2010 through March 13, 2019. All claims have been processed and all eligible Class Members have been paid.
The Distribution Plan was approved per the Court's Order dated September 15, 2022 (“Class Distribution Order”, ECF No. 111). The initial distribution commenced on September 23, 2022 and payments have been made to all authorized Claimants.
eag
Easley v. The Reserves Network, Inc.
Easley v. The Reserves Network, Inc.
The named Plaintiff alleges that The Reserves Network ("TRN") violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") by taking adverse employment actions (terminating or not hiring or placing those individuals) due to the results of a background check TRN obtained on the employee or applicant. TRN disputes the named Plaintiff's allegations and denies all liability to the named Plaintiff and the Settlement Class. TRN denies the named Plaintiff's allegations and has raised a number of defenses to the claims asserted. The Parties are settling the Litigation to avoid the risk and expense of further litigation. No court has found TRN to have violated the law in any way. No court has found that the Named Plaintiff could recover any certain amount in this Litigation. Although the Court has authorized notice to be given of the proposed Settlement, this Notice does not express the opinion of the Court on the merits of the claims or defenses asserted by either side in the Litigation.
RNI
Edwards v. Arkansas Cancer Clinic, P.A.
Edwards v. Arkansas Cancer Clinic, P.A.
On March 20, 2020, the Court granted final approval to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Edwards, et al. v. Arkansas Cancer Clinic, P.A., Case No. 35CV-18-1171 (Arkansas Circuit Court, Jefferson County). The settlement provides for any and all patients of Arkansas Cancer Clinic who had an implanted port flushed between March 22, 2018 and September 11, 2018.
EAC
Edwards v. Hearst Communications, Inc.
Edwards v. Hearst Communications, Inc.
On January 24, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Edwards v. Hearst Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-09279-AT-JLC (S.D.N.Y.) The settlement provides for cash benefits to all persons who had a Michigan street address at any time on or before July 30, 2016 who purchased and/or had a subscription to a Hearst Publication on or before July 30, 2016. Final approval was granted on April 24, 2019. All claims have been processed, and settlement benefits were sent to all eligible class members.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) sued FedEx Ground alleging the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by failing to hire or provide reasonable accommodation to deaf or hard-of-hearing Package Handlers and applicants. While FedEx Ground denied EEOC’s claims, EEOC and FedEx Ground reached an agreement to settle EEOC’s lawsuit.
On May 18, 2020 the Court entered a Consent Decree for the lawsuit, EEOC v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc., Case No. 15-cv-00256 (United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania). The settlement reached by the Parties includes both, steps FedEx will undertake to promote accommodation of deaf Package Handlers at FedEx Ground facilities, and provides money for EEOC to give to named claimants. The Consent Decree provides for a Qualified Settlement Fund of $3,300,000.00, to be paid to all named Claimants and Charging Parties. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
fxg
EEOC v. Jet Propulsion Laboratory
EEOC v. Jet Propulsion Laboratory
On June 9, 2020 the Court entered an Order on the Consent Decree in a class action U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Case No. 2:20-cv-03131 (In the United States District Court for the Central District of California). The settlement provided for monetary relief to affected claimants, as well steps for Jet Propulsion Laboratory to take actions intended to avoid and prevent future discrimination. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
JPL
El Dorado Minerals, LLC, et al, v. Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC
El Dorado Minerals, LLC, et al, v. Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC
On July 25, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Ellis v. Google, LLC, Case No. CGC-17-561299 (Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco). The settlement will provide Business Practice changes and payments for women who worked for Google LLC in California in one of the job codes covered by this lawsuit at any time from September 14, 2013 to July 25, 2022.
On September 10, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit In Re SEB Investment Management AB v. Endo International plc., et al. Settlement, Case No.2:17-CV-3711-TJS. The settlement provided for $82,500,000. The Settlement was approved by the Court on September 8, 2021. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
edo
Endurance Securities Litigation
Endurance Securities Litigation
On January 27, 2021, the court ordered the class distribution for the Endurance Securities Litigation. On September 13, 2019 the Court Approved the Class Action Settlement. The case distributed to all processed claims of eligible claimants that purchased or otherwise acquired Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. common stock during the period of October 25, 2013 through December 16, 2015, inclusive, including all persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired Endurance common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registered public offering conducted on or about October 25, 2013.
On October 9, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement in the class action lawsuit titled Engquist, et al. v. City of Los Angeles (Superior Court of the State of California for the City of Los Angeles). The Class includes all persons, including individuals, non-corporate entities, and corporations that have paid the City of Los Angeles Gas Users Tax (“GUT”) imposed by section 21.1.5 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code on amounts charged by Southern California Gas Company for reading meters, preparing bills, processing payments, and establishing service. The Court granted final approval of the Settlement on March 17, 2021. The Settlement provides the following benefits: 1) The City will no longer impose the GUT on the Customer Charge or Service Establishment Charge (unless approved by voters, if ever). 2) The City agreed to establish a Settlement Fund, and the balance of the Settlement Fund will be distributed to Southern California Gas Company customers who are residents of the City of Los Angeles and subject to the GUT. Distributions will be made by applying a reduced Los Angeles City Users Tax rate for retail customers of Southern California Gas Company (who are subject to the tax).
On August 16, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Baker, et al. v. Equity Residential Management, L.L.C., et al., Case 18-cv-11175 (D. Mass.). The settlement provided payments for tenants or occupants at Walden Park (located at 205-225 Walden Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts) between April 12, 2012 and April 24, 2014 or between July 7, 2014 and September 30, 2014. Final approval was granted on November 4, 2019. All eligible class members have been paid.
ERM
Escorza v. Contract Metal Products, Inc.
Escorza v. Contract Metal Products, Inc.
On July 19, 2021 the Court entered an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the class action Escorza v. Contract Metal Products, Inc., Case No. RG18912870 (In the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. Defendants agreed to pay a total of $275,000.00 (“Maximum Settlement Fund”) to settle this Action, inclusive of attorney’s fees, class representative awards, administration costs and monetary awards to all Participating Settlement Class Members. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
CMP
Estrada v. Galleria Market, LP.
Estrada v. Galleria Market, LP.
On January 15, 2021, the Court entered a Final Judgment in a class action, Estrada v. Galleria Market., Case No. 19STCV21959 (Superior Court of the State of California). The settlement provides for a fund of $450,000.00 to be paid to all persons who are or were employed by Galleria Market during the period from June 24, 2015 until July 30, 2020. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
gml
Eve Komesar v. City of Pasadena
Eve Komesar v. City of Pasadena
On July 3, 2019, the Court certified a lawsuit to proceed as a class action, Eve Komesar v. City of Pasadena, Case No. BC677632 (Los Angeles County Superior Court). On August 30, 2019, JND mailed the Court-approved notice to all identified class members. Please visit the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s website for further updates regarding this matter.
PAU
Expedia Hotel Taxes & Fees Litigation
Expedia Hotel Taxes & Fees Litigation
eht
Express Freight International et al. v. Hino Motors Ltd. et al.
Express Freight International et al. v. Hino Motors Ltd. et al.
Family Medicine Pharmacy v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.
Family Medicine Pharmacy v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.
Plaintiff Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC (the "Plaintiff") sued Impax Laboratories, Inc., alleging that it received unsolicited facsimile advertisements sent by the Defendant promoting Defendant's goods and/or services, without prior consent or an established business relationship, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. & 227. Plaintiff sought to represent a class of persons to whom Defendant sent the allegedly unsolicited facsimile advertisements. Defendant denies these allegations but has agreed to settle these claims solely to avoid the costs and uncertainties of litigation. Defendant will vigorously defend the lawsuit if the proposed settlement is not approved. Plaintiff has brought this action on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class. The class action is called Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 1:17-CV-00053, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, located in Mobile, Alabama.
ili
Fanelli v. Total Renal Care
Fanelli v. Total Renal Care
On August 20, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval in a class action settlement, Fanelli v. Total Renal Care, Inc. The settlement provided for individuals who at any time from April 22, 2016, through and including May 2, 2020, were employed by Total Renal Care, Inc. as a non-exempt registered nurse or dialysis nurse in the State of Washington. Final approval was granted on November 20, 2020 and the Class Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
trc
Farris v. Carlinville Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC
Farris v. Carlinville Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC
On February 23, 2021, the Court approved a proposed settlement in Farris v. Carlinville Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC, Case No. 2019-CH-42 (Illinois Circuit Court, Macoupin County). In the lawsuit, plaintiff alleges that defendant Carlinville Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, L.L.C. required its employees to provide their finger scan for timekeeping purposes, between April 5, 2014 and February 23, 2021, without first providing them with legally-required written disclosures and obtaining written consent. Defendant has agreed to create a $289,000.00 Settlement Fund for the class members. If the settlement is approved, each class member who has submitted a valid and timely claim form will be entitled to an equal payment out of the Settlement Fund. As the settlement provides for a structured payment schedule, and depending on the timing of Final Approval, each class member may receive two or three settlement checks.
On January 7, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Felix v. WM. Bolthouse Farms, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00312 (E.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff alleged that Bolthouse failed to obtain proper authorization prior to obtaining background checks and that the Consent to Request Consumer Report & Investigative Consumer Report Information utilized by Bolthouse failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes. Final Approval was granted July 7, 2020, establishing the Settlement Fund of $118,275.00 to be paid to all Class Members who did not choose to submit a timely and valid Opt Out Statement. Payments were issued on or about August 18, 2020.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Securities Litigation Settlement
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Securities Litigation Settlement
On February 16, 2021, JND distributed the Net Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants pursuant to the Order Approving Distribution Plan. After attorney's fees and expenses were deducted from the $14,750,000 Settlement, the Net Settlement Fund was distributed to all eligible class members.
FVM
Molina, Molina Healthcare, California Healthcare Settlement, Molina Settlement, ACA Settlement, ACA California
Finerman v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc.
Finerman v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc.
The Plaintiffs, Daniel Finerman and Donna Devino, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, brought claims by a complaint as a putative class action challenging certain fees they were charged to book cruises when using Exchange Points they obtained as members of the Exchange Program. The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to provide cruises in exchange for Class Members’ points and charged Class Members additional sums to cover the costs of cruises under the guise of port fees or cruise line pass through fees. Defendants deny any and all liability or wrongdoing with respect to the claims alleged in the lawsuit but desire to settle the case to avoid the risk, expense, and distraction of continued litigation.
On February 4, 2020, preliminary approval was granted for the distribution of additional benefits as proposed by Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company and Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company. The plan provided payments for the cost of title and tag transfer fees, plus interest, for insureds who had a motor vehicle or trailer total loss claim arising from an incident that occurred between August 1, 2014 and July 31, 2019. All eligible individuals have been paid.
FFB
Flowers & Khan (USA) v. City of Chicago
Flowers & Khan (USA) v. City of Chicago
On February 5, 2016, the United States of America (“United States”) filed a lawsuit against the City of Chicago (“Chicago”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois claiming that Chicago used a hiring practice that did not comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The United States claimed that Chicago’s use of a ten-year continuous United States residency requirement (“ten-year residency requirement”) as part of its background check overly excluded people born outside the United States from being hired as probationary police officers (“PPOs”) with the Chicago Police Department. The United States claimed that this requirement was not shown to be job related and consistent with business necessity, as required by federal law. Chicago stopped using the ten-year residency requirement in 2011, and began using a five-year continuous United States residency requirement.
On May 22, 2020, the Court approved a Notice mailing in a class action lawsuit, Foster v. Sitel Operating Corporation, Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-148 (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division). The lawsuit alleges that call-center employees who worked for Sitel at any time since March 1, 2016 were not paid for all hours worked and the proper amount of overtime in violation of the FLSA. For more information on the status of the case, contact Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Anderson Alexander, PLLC, at 361-452-1279.
fso
fso
FTC v. FBA Stores
FTC v. FBA Stores
The FTC reach a settlement with FBA Stores. FBA Stores falsely claimed that people could use its “Amazing Wealth System” to create a profitable online business selling products on Amazon. FBA Stores had no affiliation with Amazon, and most people who bought the “Amazing Wealth System” lost money. Refunds totaling more than $9.1 million were sent to consumers who bought these products in August 2020. Because there was still money in the fund, the FTC sent out a second round of payments totaling $669,533 to people who accepted their first payment and paid the defendants more than $7,000 in February 2022.
fba
FTC v. Pointbreak Media
FTC v. Pointbreak Media
The FTC reached a settlement with Pointbreak Media and related defendants for running an illegal robocall scheme that affected thousands of businesses nationwide. According to the lawsuit, the defendants, claiming to act on behalf of Google, told small business owners that their businesses would be removed from Google’s search results, unless they paid a fee. The defendants also falsely promised these businesses unique keywords that would make their listings appear more prominently in search results. Refund checks totaling more than $707,000 were mailed to small business owners who were deceived by this scheme.
The lawsuit alleges that Wawa misclassified AGMs as “exempt” employees, instead of properly classifying them as employees who are entitled to the protections of the FLSA, and failed to pay them overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiffs claim that the duties they primarily performed, such as greeting and assisting customers; cashiering; sales; returns; stocking; inventory; cleaning; preparing food and coffee; and operational/clerical duties, entitled them to receive overtime compensation like other, hourly Wawa employees who similarly performed such duties.
VWG
Gjonbalaj v. Volkswagen Group of America, Sunroof Settlement, Sunroof Class Action, Audi Settlement, Audi Class Action, Volkswagen Settlement, Volkswagen Class Action
Global Tel*Link Corporation Litigation
Global Tel*Link Corporation Litigation
On February 3, 2017, the Court ruled that the Lawsuit may proceed as a class action on behalf of the Class. Global Tel*Link Corporation, obtained exclusive contracts to provide inmate calling services to inmates at correctional facilities throughout the United States in exchange for the payment of “kickbacks” or “site commissions” to the facilities. On June 29, 2018, the Court decertified the class and dismissed the plaintiffs’ individual claims with prejudice.
CGM
Edward Oberski et al. v. General Motors LLC et. al., Michael Gagnon v. General Motors of Canada et. al., General Motors Canada, GM Canada, GM Canada 2014 Recalls, Delta Ignition System, Key Rotation, Camaro knee-key, Electric power steering, GM Canada Economic Settlement, GM Ignition Switch Settlement
GHL
Goldstein v. Houlihan Lawrence, Goldstein v. Houlihan Lawrence lawsuit, Goldstein v. Houlihan Lawrence litigation, Goldstein v. Houlihan Lawrence class action, Houlihan Lawrence litigation, Houlihan Lawrence
Gonzalez v. Banner Bank Settlement
Gonzalez v. Banner Bank Settlement
On September 2, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in the class action lawsuit, Gonzalez, et al. v. Banner Bank, Case No. 4:20-CV-05151-SAB (E.D. Wash.). The lawsuit alleged that Class Members were improperly charged Nonsufficient funds ("NSF") fees and/or Overdraft ("OD") fees. Final approval was granted on February 11, 2022, The net settlement fund was paid to all eligible Class Members who did not opt-out of the settlement. Payments were issued on or about April 11, 2022.
BBK
nsf, nonsufficient funds, fee, overdraft, od
Gonzalez-Tzita v. City of Los Angeles
Gonzalez-Tzita v. City of Los Angeles
This case is no longer active.
LSA
GoPro Shareholder Litigation Settlement
GoPro Shareholder Litigation Settlement
On March 28th, 2018, The Court approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, In re GoPro Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No.: CIV537077, Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo. The settlement provided for $5,000,000.00. Final approval was granted on July 27, 2018. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
gop
Gormley v. magicJack Vocaltec Ltd.
Gormley v. magicJack Vocaltec Ltd.
On September 29, 2017, The Court approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Gormley v. magicJack Vocaltec Ltd. et al, Case No. 1: 16-cv-O 1869. The settlement provided for $3,650,000.00. Final approval was granted on January 19, 2018. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
mag
mag
Granados v. County of Los Angeles
Granados v. County of Los Angeles
On March 28, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Granados v. County of Los Angeles, BC361470 (California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles). The settlement provided for $16,900,000, and final approval was granted on October 30, 2018. All claims have been processed, and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
On May 3, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Grant v. Ballard Management, Inc., Case No. 18-2-54890-0 SEA (Superior Court of Washington in King County). The settlement provides for all persons who, at any time between November 19, 2015, and December 5, 2018, were employed by Ballard Management, Inc. as an hourly-paid employee at the Emerald Grill. The case website will be updated once the Court approves the settlement and as the administration progresses. Final approval was granted on August 23, 2019. All claims have been processed and all eligible class members have been paid.
On October 1, 2020, the Court approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Gudz v. Jemrock Realty Company, LLC, 603555/2009 (N.Y. Sup.). The settlement provided for $334,042.00. Final approval was granted on March 2, 2021. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
JEM
210 West 101st Street Class Action
Gulf Coast Claims Facility
Gulf Coast Claims Facility
The Gulf Coast Claims Facility (“GCCF”), directed by Kenneth Feinberg, was one of the largest claims processing facilities in U.S. history and was responsible for resolving the claims of both individuals and businesses relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The GCCF, which Ms. Keough helped develop, processed over one million claims and distributed more than $6 billion within the first year-and-a-half of its existence. As part of the GCCF, Ms. Keough and her team coordinated a large notice outreach program which included publication in multiple journals and magazines in the Gulf Coast area. She also established a call center staffed by individuals fluent in Spanish, Vietnamese, Laotian, Khmer, French, and Croatian.
MAZ
Guthrie, et al. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Valve stem, Valve stem seal, Valve steam seal defect, Mazda Valve Steam Seal settlement, Excessive oil consumption, Mazda Settlement, Mazda
Gutierrez, Jr., et al. v. Amplify Energy Corporation, et al.
Gutierrez, Jr., et al. v. Amplify Energy Corporation, et al.
OCO
Orange County Oil Spill, Orange County Oil Spill Settlement, Huntington Beach Oil Spill, Huntington Beach Oil Spill Settlement, Fisher Class Settlement, Property Class Settlement, Amplify Energy, Beta Operating Company, San Pedro Bay Pipeline Company
On March 31, 2017, the court preliminarily approved the Stipulation and the Settlement. The Settlement will provide a one hundred million ($100,000,000) all cash Settlement Fund for the benefit of Class Members who purchased or otherwise acquired Halliburton common stock between August 16, 1999 and December 7, 2001, inclusive. This hard-fought litigation spans more than a decade and involves two arguments before the Supreme Court and multiple appeals to the Fifth Circuit. Class Counsel (defined below) obtained a certified Class, completed discovery, and fully briefed summary judgment before achieving the $100,000,000 all cash result. All claims were processed, and awards were issued to eligible claims.
hal
Halperin v. YouFit Health Clubs Settlement
Halperin v. YouFit Health Clubs Settlement
On May 28, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Halperin v. YouFit Health Clubs, LLC, Case No. 0:18-cv-61722-WPD (S.D. Fla.). The lawsuit alleges that YouFit sent text messages related to the offering of YouFit’s products or services to wireless telephone numbers without prior express written consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). Final Approval was granted November 1, 2019, establishing the Settlement Fund of $1,418,635.00 to be paid to all Class Members who submitted a timely and valid Claim Form. Payments were issued on or about June 17, 2020.
Harding, et al. v. Southcoast Hospitals Group, Inc., et al.
Harding, et al. v. Southcoast Hospitals Group, Inc., et al.
On November 24, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Harding, et al. v. Southcoast Hospitals Group, Inc., et al. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Case No. 1:20-cv-12216-LTS. The Settlement provided payments for Class Members who participated in the Southcoast Health System Partnership Plan, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in the Plan, and any Alternate Payee of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in the Plan, during the period from December 14, 2014 to November 24, 2021. Final approval was granted on April 25, 2022. All eligible class members have been paid.
SCT
Harrington v. Wells Fargo, N.A.
Harrington v. Wells Fargo, N.A.
On September 8, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Harrington v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 1:19-cv-11180-RGS (D. Mass.). In the lawsuit, the Plaintiff alleged that Wells Fargo violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, and the Massachusetts Debt Collection Regulations by placing in excess of two telephone calls in a seven day period to Massachusetts consumers to collect a debt regarding a Wells Fargo automobile loan. Final Approval was granted December 18, 2020, establishing the Settlement Fund of $1,025,000.00 to be paid to all Class Members who did not choose to submit a timely and valid Opt Out Statement. Payments were issued on or about February 25, 2021.
HAR
Harris-Chevron Settlement
Harris-Chevron Settlement
On November 19, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Harris v. Chevron U.S.A., et al., Case No. 6:19-CV-355-SPS (E.D. Okla.). The settlement provided for $4,900,000.00 in cash. Final approval was granted on February 27, 2020 and the Gross Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
CHV
Harrison v. Strategic Experiential Group
Harrison v. Strategic Experiential Group
On November 27, 2017, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Harrison, et al. v. Strategic Experiential Group, et al., Case No. RG16807555 (Cal. Super. Alameda County). The Plaintiffs alleged that Strategic Experiential Group (“SEG”) incorrectly employed people as independent contractors when they should have been employees. The lawsuit claimed SEG should have, among other things, paid for overtime and unpaid wages, provided lawful meal and rest breaks, provided accurate wage statements, paid for all wages due upon separation, paid for training in certain situations, and reimbursed all business expenses. Final Approval was granted May 2, 2018, establishing a Gross Settlement Fund of $1,950,000.00 to be paid to all Class Members who did not choose to submit a timely and valid Request for Exclusion. Payments were issued on or about March 22, 2019.
SEG
Hartnett v. Washington Federal Bank
Hartnett v. Washington Federal Bank
On November 18, 2022 the Court entered a Final Approval Order and Judgment in a class action Hartnett v. Washington Federal Bank, Case No. 2:21-cv-00888 RSM (In the United States District Court Western District of Washington). The settlement provided for monetary awards to all designated Class Members who were charged an NSF or OD fee on their accounts for a payment submitted to Defendant for collection during the Class Period—for personal accounts, from November 15, 2015 through August 31, 2021 and for business accounts, from July 1, 2020 through August 31, 2021—which request for collection initially was rejected for insufficient funds, but subsequently was re-presented to Defendant for collection on one or more additional occasions resulting in additional NSF and/or OD Fees, provided the customer either (1) ceased being a customer of Defendant on or before August 31, 2021, or (2) affirmatively opted out of contractual arbitration with Defendant before January 11, 2022. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
HWB
Hawker v. Pekin Insurance Company
Hawker v. Pekin Insurance Company
On February 25, 2022, the Court finally approved the settlement in the class action lawsuit, Hawker v. Pekin Insurance Company, Case No.: 21-CV-002169. The lawsuit claimed that the Insurance Company improperly deducted depreciation attributable to costs of labor and other nonmaterial items when adjusting some homeowners’ insurance claims in Ohio. The Insurance Company has maintained that it paid claims when reasonable and appropriate to do so and denied all allegations that it acted wrongfully or unlawfully. The settlement provided Class Members who submitted a valid claim payments that were determined as follows: (a) for Class Members to whom all Nonmaterial Depreciation has not been paid, 100% of the estimated Nonmaterial Depreciation that was withheld and not later paid, plus up to $25 interest; (b) for Class Members to whom all Nonmaterial Depreciation that was withheld and later paid, up to $25 interest on the estimated Nonmaterial Depreciation that was initially withheld, from the date of the last actual cash value payment from which Nonmaterial Depreciation was withheld to the date all Nonmaterial Depreciation was paid. To qualify, you must have submitted a timely valid Claim Form by April 11, 2022. All eligible claimants have been paid and the settlement administration has been completed.
PEK
Ohio, homeowner, homeowner's, insurance, structural damage, property, depreciation
Hay Creek Royalties, LLC v. Roan Resources LLC
Hay Creek Royalties, LLC v. Roan Resources LLC
On January 25, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in Litigation alleging that Roan Resources LLC ("Defendant") failed to properly pay royalty on gas and its constituents and pay statutory interest on allegedly late payments under Oklahoma law. The settlement provided for $20,200,000.00 in cash, plus Future Benefits valued at $25 million. Final approval was granted on April 28, 2021, and the Gross Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
hcr
Hay Creek v. Mewbourne Settlement
Hay Creek v. Mewbourne Settlement
On March 11, 2022, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Hay Creek Royalties, LLC v. Mewbourne Oil Company, Case No. 5:20-cv-01199-F (United States District Court for Western District of Oklahoma), for Defendant’s alleged failure to pay statutory interest on payments made outside the time periods set forth in the Production Revenue Standards Act, 52 O.S. § 570.1, et seq. for oil-and-gas production proceeds from oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $3,950,000.00 plus Future Benefits. Final approval was granted on July 18, 2022, and the settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
On April 6, 2023 the Court entered a Final Approval Order and Final Judgment in a class action Heard v. Omnicell, Inc., Case No. 2019-CH-06817 (In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division). The settlement provided for monetary awards to all approved Class Members who scanned their finger on an Omnicell device at their job in Illinois between June 4, 2014, and February 1, 2022 as shown in Omnicell’s customers’ record. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
On January 5, 2021, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Henry Price Trust v Plains Marketing LP, Case No. 6:19-cv-00390-RAW (The United States District Court for Eastern District of Oklahoma), for Defendant’s alleged failure to pay statutory interest on allegedly late payments under Oklahoma law. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $10,000,000.00. Final approval was granted on March 26, 2021. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
HPT
Hernandez v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
Hernandez v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
On April 6, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, granted final approval to a settlement in a lawsuit alleging that Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and TransUnion LLC (“Defendants”) violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and state laws by failing to employ reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in reporting debts discharged in bankruptcy or by failing to properly investigate disputes from consumers regarding such debts. The settlement provided both monetary and non-monetary awards to Class members who submitted a timely and valid claim in this settlement or in the 2009 Proposed Settlement, and following the resolution of an appeal, settlement benefits were distributed to participating Class Members in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
whe
discharge, bankruptcy
Hernandez, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Hernandez, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
On April 19, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Hernandez, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 18-cv-07354 (N.D. Cal.). The settlement provided benefits for all persons in the United States who between 2010 and 2018 (i) qualified for a home loan modification or repayment plan pursuant to the requirements of government-sponsored enterprises (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), (ii) were not offered a home loan modification or repayment plan by Wells Fargo due to excessive attorney’s fees being included in the loan modification decisioning process, and (iii) whose home Wells Fargo sold in foreclosure. Final approval was granted on January 9, 2022. All eligible class members have been paid.
WFH
WF2
Hess Fuel Oil Settlement
Hess Fuel Oil Settlement
On December 2, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Mid Island LP d/b/a Madison Management of Queens and Carnegie Park Associates, L.P. v. Hess Corporation, Index No. 650911/2013 (N.Y. – New York). Plaintiffs alleged that between March 2009 and March 2013, Defendant breached its warranties to thousands of Defendant’s heating-oil customers who ordered, and paid for Hess No. 4 or Hess No. 6 oil, but instead third-party carriers, unrelated to Hess, delivered a product adulterated with non-Hess used or waste oil. Defendant denied and continues to deny Plaintiffs’ allegations that it has committed any violations of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts alleged in the December 16, 2013, First Amended Complaint and has maintained that it has meritorious defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims. Final Settlement Approval was granted April 12, 2022, establishing a Settlement Fund for distribution to Class Members. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
HSS
Hill and Gayken v. Garda CL NW
Hill and Gayken v. Garda CL NW
On February 7, 2020, the Court approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Hill and Gayken v. Garda CL Northwest, Inc., Case No. 09-2-07360-1 (Consolidated with No. 15-2-26829-1) (Washington Superior Court, King County). The settlement covers actual or alleged failure to provide the meal periods and rest breaks required by Washington law during the period from February 11, 2006 through August 5, 2018. Settlement benefits have been paid to all eligible Class Members.
GGG
Hill Green v. Experian Information Solutions
Hill Green v. Experian Information Solutions
On March 2, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certifying Settlement Classes in the class action Hill-Green v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-708 (in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia). The Defendant agreed to pay a total of $22,450,000 to settle this Action, inclusive of attorney's fees, Class Representative payments, administration costs, and monetary awards to Class Members. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
On December 31, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Hill v. Valli Produce of Evanston, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019CH13196 (Ill. Cir. Cook County). The Plaintiff alleged that Valli Produce of Evanston, Inc. violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) by requiring their current and/or former employees to submit their finger scan for timekeeping purposes during the Class Period without first providing the requisite disclosures or obtaining the requisite consent. Final Approval was granted April 21, 2021, establishing the Settlement Fund of $815,000.00 to be paid to all Class Members who did not choose to submit a timely and valid Request for Exclusion. Payments were issued on or about May 4, 2021.
vpe
Hill v. Xerox Business Services
Hill v. Xerox Business Services
On December 17, 2019, the Court approved a class certification notice in the lawsuit of Hill v. Xerox Business Services, LLC, Case No. C12-0717-JCC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington). The members of the lawsuit are people who worked at a Xerox Business Services or Livebridge call center in Washington at any time between June 5, 2010 and the present under an “Activity Based Compensation” or “ABC” plan that paid “per minute” rates for certain work activities. The case website will be updated as the lawsuit progresses. The deadline to opt-out of the lawsuit passed on February 18, 2020.
hvx
Hines v. CBS Television Studios
Hines v. CBS Television Studios
Several lawsuits were filed by current and former Parking Production Assistants ("PPAs") asserting that PPAs are owed compensation for hours worked for which they were not paid. Specifically, the PPAs allege, inter alia, that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law by not paying the PPAs correctly for all the hours, including overtime hours, that they worked. Defendants deny that they violated the law and maintain that they have consistently acted in accordance with all governing laws at all times, including by paying PPAs correctly. However, to avoid the burden, expense, and inconvenience of continued litigation, Defendants have agreed to settle the lawsuits, without admitting any wrongdoing or liability.
CBS
Hobby Lobby Settlement
Hobby Lobby Settlement
On August 20, 2021, the Court entered final approval for the proposed Alabama and Florida Settlements, which were consolidated under the case entitled Phillips, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00837-JHE. Individuals who purchased furniture at a Florida or Alabama Hobby Lobby store and used a 40% off coupon during the time periods outlined in each of the Settlements were eligible to receive a payment of $14.00. Alabama Class Members were also eligible to receive a Hobby Lobby gift card in the amount of $25.00. All Claims have been processed and Settlement benefits have been sent to all Class Members who submitted eligible Claims.
hls
David Phillips, Steven D. Marcrum, Hobby Lobby Stores
Holloway et al. v. Parke & Son
Holloway et al. v. Parke & Son
On January 20, 2022, the Court granted final approval to a settlement in Terry Holloway and Brent Colclasure v Parke & Son, Inc d/b/a Parke Warehouses, Case No. 2019-L-109 (Ill. Cir. Macon.) The settlement provided for cash benefits of $71,825.00. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
PRK
BIPA, Hand scanning, Finger print scanning, Timekeeping, Handprint data
Holmes, et al. v. LM Insurance Corporation et al.
Holmes, et al. v. LM Insurance Corporation et al.
On October 6, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Holmes, et al. v. LM Insurance Corporation et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00466. The lawsuit claimed that the Insurance Companies improperly deducted depreciation attributable to costs of labor and other nonmaterial items when adjusting some homeowners’ insurance claims in Tennessee and Mississippi, and some commercial property damage insurance claims in Tennessee, Mississippi, and Ohio. Final approval was granted on February 5, 2021. All eligible class members who submitted a claim have been paid.
lmi
Hoog v. Trinity Operating
Hoog v. Trinity Operating
On January 11, 2023, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Hoog v. PetroQuest Energy, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 6:16-cv-00463-KEW (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma), for Defendants’ and/or PetroQuest’s alleged underpayment of royalty on gas and gas constituents from Oklahoma oil-and-gas wells during the Claim Period. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $45,000,000.00. Final approval was granted on April 17, 2023, and the settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
HTR
Hospital Housekeeping Systems BIPA Settlement
Hospital Housekeeping Systems BIPA Settlement
On August 23, 2021, the Court granted final approval to a settlement in Stephanie Sahlin v. Hospital Housekeeping Systems, LLC., Case No. 2021L28 (Ill. Cir. Williamson.) The settlement provided for cash benefits of more than $801,800.00. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
HHS
Sahlin, clock-in, clock in, biometric, HHS employee, Sahlin v HHS, fingerprint, finger print, Illinois
Howell v. Checkr, Inc. Settlement
Howell v. Checkr, Inc. Settlement
Plaintiff alleges that Checkr violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by allegedly producing background reports on individuals containing non-conviction information older than seven years from the date of the report. Plaintiff alleges that this reporting caused him harm and violated the law.
CKR
Hoyte v. District of Columbia Settlement
Hoyte v. District of Columbia Settlement
On April 9, 2021 the Court entered an Final Approval Order in a class action, Nickoya Hoyte, et al., v. Government of the District of Columbia. Civil Action No. 13-569 (CRC) (United States District Court for the District of Columbia). The settlement provides for a fund of $1,920,637.94.00, to be paid to all approved Class Members who had either their vehicles or their money seized by the District without adequate notice. May 5, 2020. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
HOY
Hoyte, DC, car, seizure, money seizure, car seizure, forfeiture, metro police, DC police
On July 25, 2022 the Court entered a Final Approval Order in a class action Deborah Hubbard v. Henkel Corporation, Case No. 19-cv-04346-JST (In the United States District Court Norther District of California). The settlement provided for monetary awards to all non-exempt persons employed by Defendant in the state of California during the period of June 26, 2015 through November 29, 2021 and to All individuals nationwide on whom Defendant procured a consumer report between June 26, 2014 and December 1, 2019, who did not receive a copy of their report before June 26, 2017, and identified as eligible Class Members. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
HKL
Hufford, et al. v. Maxim Inc.
Hufford, et al. v. Maxim Inc.
On August 13, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Hufford, et al., v. Maxim Inc., Case No. 19-cv-04452 (S.D. NY). The settlement provided benefits for individuals with a Michigan street address who subscribed directly to Maxim for receipt of a Maxim magazine to be delivered to a Michigan street address between May 15, 2016 and July 30, 2016. Final approval was granted on November 11, 2020. All eligible class members have been paid.
hfm
Huntzinger v. Suunto Oy, et al.
Huntzinger v. Suunto Oy, et al.
On August 10, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Huntzinger v. Suunto Oy, et al. The Settlement provides for an Inspection, Repair or Replacement Program to assess potential depth pressure sensor failures in eligible Suunto Dive Computers, as well as a Reimbursement Program for previous out-of-pocket repairs or replacements of eligible Suunto Dive Computers due to depth pressure sensor failures. Final approval of the Settlement was granted on December 14, 2018. All Reimbursement Claims have been processed, and eligible Claims have been paid. The Inspection, Repair or Replacement Program will operate through Suunto Oy until its expiration.
In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities Litigation
In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities Litigation
On December 18, 2020 the Order Approving Distribution Plan, approved the terms of the Settlement and on February 18, 2021 and April 13, 2022 a distribution of funds occurred. The Settlement was established for the benefit of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Akorn, Inc., during the period from November 3, 2016 through January 8, 2019, inclusive and were damaged thereby. Damages were calculated in accordance with the Plan of Allocation.
ak2
In Re Alta Mesa Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation
In Re Alta Mesa Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation
On December 11, 2019, the court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, In re Banner Health Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 2:16-cv-02696-SRB (United States District Court D. Ariz.). Final approval was granted on April 21, 2020, and benefits have been distributed to all eligible class members in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
The court ordered the Distribution on February 26,2021, for the Equifax Securities Litigation in the Order Approving Distribution Plan. The case distributed to all processed claims of eligible claimants that that fit the eligible Settlement definition.
On February 18, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, In re Guess Outlet Stores Pricing, JCCP No. 4883 (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles). The settlement provided payments for individuals who, between April 17, 2011 and February 26, 2018, purchased a product where a higher reference price was displayed in a Guess Factory store in California. Final approval was granted on August 7, 2018. All eligible class members have been paid.
GOS
In re Helios and Matheson Analytics, Inc.
In re Helios and Matheson Analytics, Inc.
On December 23, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the Class Action Settlement, Form and Manner of Notice for the In Re Helios and Matheson Analytics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:18-cv-06965-JGK. The Settlement provided for $8,250,000. The Settlement was approved in a Court Order on May 13, 2021. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
HLM
In re Illumina, Inc Securities Litigation
In re Illumina, Inc Securities Litigation
On November 3, 2020 the Court approved the Distribution Order. The approval provided for the disbursement of the $13,850,000 Net Settlement Fund to all eligible class members affected by the matters mentioned in Case No. 3:16-cv-03044-L-MSB known as the In re Illumina, Inc., Securities Litigation.
ILL
In re Intuit Data Litigation Settlement
In re Intuit Data Litigation Settlement
On October 4, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, In re Intuit Data Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-1778-EJD (N.D. Cal.).The settlement provides for two (2) years of TransUnion credit monitoring services, free of charge, for Class Members who enroll and Intuit has already adopted numerous security measures it believes have reduced the incidence of fraud. Final approval was granted on May 15, 2019. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litigation
In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litigation
On November 20, 2019, the Court granted preliminary approval to settlements in Litigation alleging that defendants Ferellgas and AmeriGas violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to inflate the prices of Filled Propane Exchange Tanks. The settlements provided benefits totaling $12,562,500 in cash, comprising $6,250,000 from the Ferrellgas Settlement and $6,312,500 from the AmeriGas Settlement. Final approval was granted on June 18, 2020, and the funds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreements.
On August 24, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit In Re Rev Group Inc Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:18-cv-1268-LA. The settlement provided for $14,250,000. The Settlement was approved by the Court on December 9, 2021. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
rev
In re Saks Inc Shareholder Litigation
In re Saks Inc Shareholder Litigation
On March 26, 2021, the court approved the proposed Settlement of $21,000,000, Certification of the Class, Attorney's fees and Service Awards to Lead Plaintiff for the In Re Saks Inc Shareholder Litigation (SUP CT NY County). On March 2, 2022, the order Authorizing the Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund was approved. The initial distribution commenced on April 13, 2022 and payments have been made to all authorized Claimants.
On February 24, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, In re: Vale S.A. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:15-cv-9539-GHW. The settlement provided for $25,000,000. The Settlement was approved by the Court on June 10, 2020. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
In Re: Farm-Raised Salmon and Salmon Products Antitrust Litigation
In Re: Farm-Raised Salmon and Salmon Products Antitrust Litigation
On September 8, 2022, the Court entered an order approving the Settlement in In re: Farm-Raised Salmon and Salmon Products Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 19-21551-CIV-ALTONAGA (United States District Court for the Southern District Florida). The Settlement provided for a total Settlement Amount of $85,000,000.00 to be distributed to Settlement Class Members who submit valid claims after deductions for attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and other expenses. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and negotiated.
FSA
In re: General Motors Ignition Switch Litigation
In re: General Motors Ignition Switch Litigation
On December 18, 2020, the Court entered its Final Order and Final Judgment Granting Final Approval of the Economic Loss Class Action Settlement, Confirming Certification of the Economic Loss Settlement Class, and Dismissing All Actions with Prejudice in a class action, In re: General Motors Ignition Switch Litigation, Case No. 14-MD-2543 (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York). The settlement provided for a fund of $121,100,000.00, to be paid to over 1.4 million eligible Settlement Claimants who were current and former owners and lessees of GM vehicles that were subject to certain 2014 recalls. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
GMS
In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation
In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation
On June 7, 2021, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment in the class action In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14-md-02542 (in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York). The Defendant agreed to pay a total of $31,000,000 to settle this Action, inclusive of attorney's fees, administration costs, and monetary awards to Class Members. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
KEU
K-cup, Keurig settlement, Kerig, Kurig, Kuerig, K cup
In re: Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation/Tuna Direct Purchaser Case
In re: Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation/Tuna Direct Purchaser Case
PSH
Porsche, Gasoline, Fuel Economy, Other Class Vehicle, Sport +, Emissions, Calculated Compensation, Monroney Label
In the Matter of the Complaint of Dordellas Finance Corp., Owner and MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A., Owner
In the Matter of the Complaint of Dordellas Finance Corp., Owner and MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A., Owner
The owners of two container ships (MS DANIT and M/V BEIJING) that allegedly struck and damaged a pipeline, which damage is alleged to have been a factor in causing an oil spill that resulted in damage to commercial fishers and processors, coastal real property, and certain waterfront tourism businesses, filed lawsuits called “Limitation Actions” to either clear themselves of responsibility for the oil spill or to limit the amount they might need to pay in damages. The Limitation Actions have since been replaced by a settlement with the Shipping Defendants. All claims filed in the Limitation Actions are considered addressed by the Shipping Defendants settlement.
OC2
Orange County, Huntington Beach, oil spill, LOLA, shipping
JND Co-Founders Neil Zola and David Isaac oversaw the administration of the $586 million settlement in In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21-MC-92 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “IPO Litigation”). The case consisted of more than 300 initial public offerings (“IPOs”) marketed between 1998 and 2000. The defendants included the companies brought public, certain of their officers and directors, and fifty-five of the investment banks that brought the companies public and underwrote various follow-on offerings. In this massive case, which was akin to 309 class actions rolled into one, Mr. Zola and Mr. Isaac worked with the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee prior to settlement to help structure the ultimate administration program. They then oversaw the mailing of 25 million notices and the processing of nearly 400,000 claims.
onn
fingerprinting settlement, Iyana Humphries v. Onni Contracting LTD, Iyana Humphries v. Onni Contracting LTD settlement, Iyana Humphries settlement, Onni Contracting settlement, Onni biometrics settlement, JND, biometric identifiers settlement, biometric information settlement, BIPA settlement, Illinois BIPA settlement, Cook County, Onni lawsuit, Onni Contracting, Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
J. Crew Factory Stores Pricing
J. Crew Factory Stores Pricing
On August 21, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Adam Press et al v. J. Crew Group, Inc, Case No. 56-2018-00512503 CU-BT-VTA (California Superior Court, County of Ventura). The settlement provides for all persons who, while in California, New York, or New Jersey during the Class Period, purchased one or more products at a J. Crew Factory and/or J. Crew Mercantile Store and/or J. Crew Factory Website, and did not receive a credit or refund for their purchase(s). Final approval was granted on February 22, 2019. All claims have been processed and benefit vouchers have been distributed to all eligible class members.
PJC
J.P. Morgan Stable Value Fund ERISA Litigation
J.P. Morgan Stable Value Fund ERISA Litigation
On September 23, 2019, the Court granted final approval to a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, In re JPMorgan Stable Value Fund ERISA Litigation. The Settlement provided for individuals whose 401(k) plan accounts included investments in the JPMorgan stable value funds. Plaintiffs alleged violations of ERISA concerning the way Defendants managed the Class Members’ 401(k) plan investments allocated to certain JPMorgan stable value funds, which Defendants denied. The Court has not determined whether Plaintiffs or Defendants are correct, and by reaching a Settlement, the parties have agreed to the benefits as described in the Settlement Agreement. Settlement payment distribution has occurred per the Plan of Allocation.
svf
Jackson LPI Settlement
Jackson LPI Settlement
A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving lender-placed insurance (“LPI”) charged by Fay Servicing LLC (“Fay”) and issued by Southwest Business Corporation, American Modern Insurance Group, Inc., or one of its affiliates (collectively “the Insurer Defendants”), between January 1, 2009 and August 9, 2017. The lawsuit alleges that when a borrower was required to have insurance for his or her property under a residential mortgage or home equity loan or line of credit, and evidence of acceptable coverage was not provided, Fay would place insurance in a manner such that Fay allegedly received an unauthorized benefit. Defendants expressly deny the allegations in the lawsuit. The Court has not decided who is right or that Defendants did anything wrong.
FAY
Jackson v. U.S. Bancorp
Jackson v. U.S. Bancorp
On November 6, 2020, the Court entered a Stipulated Order of Conditional Collective Action Certification in a case, Jennifer Jackson, et al. v. U.S. Bancorp, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02310-EFM-TJJ (U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas). The stipulation provides for the conditional certification of a collective action under the Plaintiff’s claim, as well as the sending of a Notice to Putative Plaintiffs informing them of their right to join the action. The opt-in period in this matter has now passed.
jus
James Bond Box Set Settlement
James Bond Box Set Settlement
On February 26, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Johnson v. MGM Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-00541-RSM (W.D. Wash.). The settlement provided participating Class Members with digital copies of the 1967 film entitled Casino Royale and the 1983 film entitled Never Say Never Again. Final approval was granted on October 16, 2018, and the settlement benefits were subsequently distributed to eligible Class Members.
PAC
fire, Echo Mountain Fire, Kimberling Fire, South Obenchain Fire, 242 Fire, Santiam Canyon Fire
James v. Mado Healthcare, LLC
James v. Mado Healthcare, LLC
On January 19, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, James v. Mado Healthcare, LLC, Case No. 2019CH06140 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division). The settlement provides for those who were required to provide their biometric information (e.g. finger scan, etc.) for timekeeping purposes to one or more of the Defendants within the state of Illinois and have not previously signed a waiver or release relating to these claims.
JGM
Jefferson v. General Motors LLC, General Motors, GM, GMC Acadia Lawsuit, 2017-2018, GMC Acadia vehicles, 2017-2018 GMC Acadia in Tennessee
Jetson Mitchell et al. v Murray Energy Corporation et al.
Jetson Mitchell et al. v Murray Energy Corporation et al.
On June 2, 2022 the Court entered Final Approvals in a class action Mitchell v. Murray Energy Corporation et al, Case No. 17-cv-444-NJR (In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois). The settlement provided for monetary relief to the Mitchell and Rider Classes. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
MEC
John Doe v. California Department of Public Health et al.
John Doe v. California Department of Public Health et al.
On August 28, 2023, the Court entered a Final Judgement in the class action, John Doe v. California Department of Public Health et al., Case No. 20STCV32364 (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District). The Settlement provided a payment for those enrolled in CDPH’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program (“ADAP”) and the Office of AIDS Health Insurance Premium Payment Program (“OA-HIPP”) whose information was disclosed without their authorization or consent and were sent a notice from CDPH in or about June 2020. The Settlement also required certain Defendants to change their practices and provided Class Members the option of deleting any information those Defendants may have had about the Class Member from their computer systems. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
AFV
Johnson v. Kendall, Johnson Air Force Settlement, Air Force Settlement, Air Force Class Action, Air Force, Space Force, Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, AFDRB
Johnson v. Tractor Supply Co.
Johnson v. Tractor Supply Co.
On September 18, 2020, the Court entered an Order and Judgment in a class action, Tammy Johnson & Vaness Dettwiler v. Tractor Supply Co., Case No. 19-2-01975-1-KNT (Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for King County). The settlement provides for a fund of $1,250,000.00, to be paid to all approved Class Members who were employed on-exempt employee in one of TSC’s stores in Washington between December 12, 2014 and May 5, 2020. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
jts
Tammy, Johnson, Tractor, Supply
Johnson v. Yahoo! Inc.
Johnson v. Yahoo! Inc.
The purpose of the notice is to advise Class Members of Johnson v. Yahoo! Inc. that, by order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, this former class action is decertified. The Court determined that this action can no longer proceed as a class action. Individuals who were previously members of the Class and who wish to pursue their claims against Yahoo must now bring their claims in individual lawsuits.
JOY
Johnston et al. v. Camino Natural Resources
Johnston et al. v. Camino Natural Resources
On January 25, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in Litigation alleging that Camino Natural Resources LLC ("Defendant") allegedly failed to pay statutory interest on allegedly late payments under Oklahoma law. The settlement provided for $2,100,000.00 in cash, plus Future Benefits valued at $7 million. Final approval was granted on June 22, 2021, and the Gross Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Code42 Software, Inc. ("Code42"). The settlement resolves a lawsuit over whether Code42 complied with a California law that requires companies selling automatically renewing services to provide certain information to consumers; it avoids costs and risks to you from continuing the lawsuit; pays money to consumers like you; and releases Code42 from liability. Your legal rights are affected whether you choose to act or don't act. The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to approve the settlement. Payments will be made if the Court approves the settlement and after appeals are resolved. Please be patient.
KIS
Jose Mario Castro and Beth Alexander Ponce v. Sola Rentals, Inc., Marin Muoto
Jose Mario Castro and Beth Alexander Ponce v. Sola Rentals, Inc., Marin Muoto
On December 8, 2018, a lawsuit was filed against the County of Los Angeles, Judith Zissa, et al. v. The County of Los Angeles, Case No. 2:18-cv-10174-CJC-JDE (United States District Court, Central District of California). This lawsuit is brought by Judith Zissa on behalf of current and former Children’s Social Workers and Children’s Social Worker Trainees, who worked for DCFS at any time from December 6, 2015 to the present. Individuals who wanted to join the lawsuit were to return the “Opt-In Consent Form” to the Claims Administrator by December 30, 2019.
ZSA
Kain, et al. v. The Economist Newspaper NA, Inc.
Kain, et al. v. The Economist Newspaper NA, Inc.
On December 15, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Kain, et al. v. The Economist Newspaper NA, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-11807-MFL-CI (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan). This lawsuit alleged that The Economist Publication violated Michigan’s Preservation of Personal Privacy Act by disclosing information related to its customers’ magazine subscriptions to third parties before July 30, 2016. The Settlement provided payments to all individuals with a Michigan street address who subscribed to a The Economist Publication to be delivered to a Michigan street address or electronically between February 4, 2015, and July 30, 2016. Final approval was granted on March 16, 2023. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
ENP
Kalra v. Mercedes-Benz Canada, Inc. et al.
Kalra v. Mercedes-Benz Canada, Inc. et al.
On April 5, 2016, the Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit against the Defendants in the Court arising out of the Defendants’ marketing and sale of Mercedes-Benz BlueTEC diesel vehicles in a class action Kalra v. Mercedes-Benz Canada, Inc., Case No.CV-16-550271-00CP (Ontario Superior Court of Justice). The settlement provided a benefit payment for eligible current and former owners/lessees who submitted a valid claim. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
CEM
Emissions, Mercedes-Benz, Sprinter, Bluetec II Settlement, Canada, Diesel, Field Measure, 8, Kalra, Règlement Mercedes-Benz, Sprinter, Voitures, Véhicule diesel, La Mesure sur le Terrain, CEM
The Court ordered a Notice to be sent to all relevant parties to advise of a lawsuit that has been filed against Equinox Holdings, Inc. (“Defendant”) pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and to advise Notice recipients of their right to participate in that lawsuit. In the lawsuit Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to pay Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 3+, and Tier X Trainers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week. It has not yet decided whether Defendant violated any laws or whether the notified parties or Plaintiffs are entitled to money or other relief. Individuals that decided to join the case may be asked to participate in the discovery process, which means answering questions under oath and/or providing documents related to the case.
EQH
Keith Jerome, et al. v. Elan 99, LLC
Keith Jerome, et al. v. Elan 99, LLC
There is a pending class action settlement in a lawsuit alleging that from November 1, 2016 through January 8, 2018 Elan 99 violated the Texas Property Code by assessing and collecting from residential tenants at Elan 99 West apartments rent late fees that exceeded the amount they were statutorily permitted to collect. Elan 99 maintains that it properly assessed and collected the fees, and denies all claims and allegations that it acted wrongfully or unlawfully.
ELA
Kenneth Wright v. Lyft, Inc.
Kenneth Wright v. Lyft, Inc.
On January 29, 2021, the Court entered an Order re: Final Judgment in a class action, Kenneth Wright v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00421-BJR (District Court of the State of Washington). The settlement provides for a fund of $3,995,000.00 to be paid to all Washington residents who, between June 1, 2012 and November 15, 2018, received on their cellular telephones one or more invitational or referral text messages through Lyft’s ‘Invite a Friend’ program. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
LFT
Kenny v. Locke Transportation
Kenny v. Locke Transportation
On January 26, 2022, the court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Kenny v. Locke Transportation, INC., Case No. 2020-CH-07073 (Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois). Final approval was granted on April 27, 2022, and established a Settlement Fund of $151,000. Benefits have been distributed to all eligible class members in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
On August 18, 2021, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Kernen v. Casillas Operating LLC, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00107-JD (United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma), for Defendant’s alleged failure to pay statutory interest on payments made outside the time periods set forth in the Production Revenue Standards Act, 52 O.S. § 570.1, et seq. for oil and gas production proceeds from oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $2,700,000.00. Final approval was granted on January 3, 2023, and the settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
On September 6, 2019, the court granted final approval to a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Donna Kirchoff v. Big River Restaurants, LLC, et al. and David Paradise. The settlement provided for individuals who worked as an AM at an Applebee’s, IHOP, Pizza Hut, or Taco Bell restaurant operated by Big River between May 1, 2015 and May 1, 2018 and who worked at least 20 full workweeks. The Gross Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
big
Donna, Kirchoff, Applebee’s, IHOP, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell
Klein v. Ambrosia QSR Burger LLC and Ambrosia QSR Washington LLC
Klein v. Ambrosia QSR Burger LLC and Ambrosia QSR Washington LLC
On April 30, 2021, the Court entered an Order and Judgment in a class action, Mai L. Klein v. Ambrosia QSR Burger LLC and Ambrosia QSR Washington LLC, Case No. 20-2-06162-5 (Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for the County of Pierce). The settlement provides for a Class Fund of $234,500.00, to be paid to all approved Class Members all individuals who were employed by Ambrosia and worked one or more shifts in an hourly, non-exempt position for Ambrosia at a Burger King-branded restaurant any time during the Settlement Class Period of March 15, 2019 through May 22, 2020. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
brg
Konecky v. Allstate
Konecky v. Allstate
On September 28, 2018 the Court preliminary approved the class settlement for the Konecky v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., et al., Case No. 17-CV-00010-DWM class action. The class included “All Persons (and their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns), as of September 28, 2018, (a) who were insured under an auto insurance policy issued by Allstate in Montana; (b) with respect to whom Allstate recovered subrogation on a Montana automobile insurance claim after October 21, 2008.” On February 15, 2019, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. The Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
On November 2, 2022, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Kunneman Properties LLC, et al. v. Marathon Oil Company, Case No. 6:22-cv-00274-KEW (United States District Court for Eastern District of Oklahoma), for Defendant's alleged underpayment of royalty on gas and gas constituents from Oklahoma oil-and-gas wells. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $35,000,000.00. Final approval was granted on February 16, 2023. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
KPM
Kyle Sullivan and Jeanne Sloan v. Wenner Media LLC
Kyle Sullivan and Jeanne Sloan v. Wenner Media LLC
Plaintiffs (Kyle Sullivan and Jeanne Sloan) filed a proposed class action lawsuit, the Action, against Defendant (Wenner Media LLC). In the Action, Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that Defendant disclosed subscriber information in violation of Michigan law. Defendant denies all allegations of wrongdoing and believes it complied with applicable law. Defendant has asserted many defenses it believes would succeed at trial. In agreeing to settle, Defendant maintains that it complied with the law and does not admit any wrongdoing.
On July 31, 2019, the Court approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Strougo v. Lannett Company, Inc. et al., No. 2:18-cv-03635-MAK. The settlement provided for $300,000. Final approval was granted on April 28, 2020. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
On April 16, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Peter Lee and Latonya Campbell v. The Hertz Corp. & Dollar Thrifty Auto Grp., Inc.The settlement provides forall persons who applied for employment with The Hertz Corporation or Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., in the United States, at any time from August 21, 2013 to September 8, 2016, and who are members of Category 1, 2, and/or 3 groups. Final approval was granted on August 30, 2019.All claims have been processed and all eligible class members have been mailed settlement checks.
LCH
Lee v. Trinity Operating
Lee v. Trinity Operating
On January 11, 2023, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Lee v. PetroQuest Energy, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 6:16-cv-00516-KEW (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma), for Defendants’ and/or PetroQuest’s alleged failure to pay statutory interest on allegedly late payments under Oklahoma law. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $15,000,000.00. Final approval was granted on April 17, 2023, and the settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
On May 19, 2022, an Order Certifying Settlement Class; Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; and Approving Form and Content of Class Notice, from the United States District Court Eastern District of New York provided that notices be sent to the eligible class in accordance with its' terms. On October 4 ,2022 , the terms of the Proposed Class Action Settlement were approved in the Order Granting Approval of Class Action Settlement, Awarding Attorney's Fees, Expenses, and Named Plaintiff Service Awards; and Entering Final Judgement. The eligible class members will be awarded from the Settlement in accordance with the Court Order.
APL
Liang, et al. v. State of Washington Dep’t of Social & Health Services, et al.
Liang, et al. v. State of Washington Dep’t of Social & Health Services, et al.
On July 27, 2020 , in the Order Awarding Fees and Expenses, the Settlement terms and attorney's fees were approved by the court, which established the common fund $20 million in cash. The distribution of the Net Settlement Fund fairly paid all eligible claims that fit the following definition: All Persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired shares of LifeLock publicly traded common stock and/or call options, and/or sold LifeLock publicly traded put options during the period from July 31, 2014 through July 21, 2015, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby. All claims were processed, and awards were issued to eligible Claimants.
On February 26, 2020, the Court granted final approval to a settlement in Sheila Linderman v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. BC650785 (Cal Super - Los Angeles). The City has agreed to provide Class Members with a one-time, non-transferable, Fee Adjustment Credit toward the Annual Renewal Fee for an Alarm System permit issued for the 2021 calendar year. It is estimated that the Fee Adjustment Credit will be approximately $12.00 per Class Member; however, this amount may increase or decrease, on a pro rata basis, based on a number of factors that have yet to be determined; mainly, the Court’s award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards to Plaintiffs and Class Counsel and the administration expenses of the Settlement Administrator. The Agreement also provides prospective relief to the Class in the form of a prospective Reduced Alarm Permit Fee for Alarm System permits issued for the 2020, 2021, and 2022 calendar years. The Reduced Alarm Permit Fee would be Five Dollars ($5.00) less than the existing Alarm Permit Fee charged by the City for an Alarm System permit.
LND
Linkwell Corp. Securities Litigation
Linkwell Corp. Securities Litigation
On May 29, 2020, the court ordered the Order Granting Class Representatives Unopposed Motion for Distribution of Net Settlement Fund. The $6,000,000 Settlement Fund was established for the benefit of eligible Class Members who purchased or acquired Linkwell common stock as of the close of business on September 19, 2014, who did not vote to approve the Merger between Linkwell and Leading World Corporation, whose shares were canceled as a result of the Merger between Linkwell and Leading World Corporation, both dates inclusive. All claims were processed, and awards were issued to eligible claimants.
On August 12, 2021, the Court approved the distribution of the settlement in accordance with the Court's Order Modifying and Approving Distribution Plan. After attorney's fees and expenses were deducted from the $3,250,000 settlement, the net settlement fund was distributed to all eligible class members.
LBT
Liotta v. Wolford Boutiques, LLC Settlement
Liotta v. Wolford Boutiques, LLC Settlement
On November 30, 2018, the Court entered final approval of the proposed Settlement in the class action Liotta, et al. v. Wolford Boutiques, LLC, 1:16-cv-4634-MHC (N.D. Ga.). Owners of the telephone numbers that claimed to have received one or both of the Text Messages sent by Wolford on July 7, 2017 and September 2, 2016 were eligible to receive a Wolford Gift Card in the amount of $60.00 or $120.00, depending on the number of texts received. All claims have been processed and Settlement benefits have been sent to all Class Members who submitted valid claims.
On May 5, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Loftus v. Outside Integrated Media, LLC., Case No. 2:21-cv-11809-MAG-DRG (The United States District Court for Eastern District of Michigan). The settlement provided for cash benefits of $563,865.00. Final approval was granted on August 13, 2022, and the Settlement benefits have been distributed to all eligible class members in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
OIM
Loftus v. Outside Integrated Media,
John Loftus v. Outside Integrated Media, LLC,
Outside Magazine Settlement,
magazine subscription settlement,
Michigan’s Preservation of Personal Privacy Act settlement,
outside publication settlement
On July 8, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Lowe v. Popcornopolis LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-06984-PSG-RAO (C.D. Cal.). The lawsuit alleged that Popcornopolis violated California law with respect to employees who worked in California by failing to pay for all hours worked, including at required California minimum wage and overtime rates, and failing to provide employees the meal and rest periods they are entitled to under California law. Final Approval was granted December 15, 2020, establishing the Gross Settlement Amount of $500,000.00 to be paid to all Class Members who did not submit a timely and valid Request for Exclusion. Payments were issued on or about January 26, 2021.
LPO
LSB Industries Securities Litigation
LSB Industries Securities Litigation
The court ordered the Distribution on September 21, 2020, for the LSB Industries Securities Litigation in the Class Distribution Order. The case distributed to all processed claims of eligible claimants that that fit the eligible Settlement definition.
On December 10, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Mabrey v. Autovest LLC, et al., Case No. CGC-18-566617 (California Superior Court – County of San Francisco). Under the Settlement, Defendants will not collect outstanding balances and will request deletion of trade line references in credit reports for all persons who purchased a Motor Vehicle pursuant to a Conditional Sale Contract, whose Motor Vehicles were repossessed or voluntarily surrendered, who were sent an NOI by UAC between September 11, 2014 and February 15, 2019, and against whose accounts UAC and/or Autovest assessed a deficiency balance following the disposition of the Motor Vehicles. Final approval was granted on November 12, 2020.
vst
MacCartney, et al. v. Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C. and Vision Investigative Service, LLC
MacCartney, et al. v. Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C. and Vision Investigative Service, LLC
On August 12, 2020, the Court entered an Order and Judgment in a class action, Steven Malin v. Ambry Genetics Corporation, Case No. 30-2018-00994841-CU-SL-CXC (California Superior Court in Orange County). The settlement provides for a fund of $8,750,000, to be paid to former Ambry shareholders who sold some or all of their shares back to Ambry as a part of the 2015 repurchase program, which consisted of two Tender Offers announced in June 2015 and July 2015. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
AMB
Malone v. Western Digital Corp.
Malone v. Western Digital Corp.
On December 22, 2021 the Court entered Final Approval in class action Malone v. Western Digital Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-03584-NC (in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California). The Settlement provided monetary relief in the form of a fund of $2,700,000.00, to be paid to Western Digital class members in the United States (including its states, districts or territories) who purchased certain Western Digital hard drives with SMR technology between October 2018 and July 21, 2021, and filed valid claims. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
WDC
Western Digital class action, Western Digital settlement, Western Digital Hard Drive, Hard Drive settlement, WD class action, WD settlement, WD Hard Drive, WD Hard Drive settlement, WD Hard Drive class action, Western Digital WD Red, Western Digital WD Red class action, Western Digital WD Red settlement, Western Digital WD Red NAS, WD Red NAS settlement, WD Red settlement, Red NAS Hard Drive, SMR class action, SMR settlement, Western Digital false advertising, WD false advertising
beu
Marical, BECU, boeing, boeing employees’ credit union, overdraft, fees, non-sufficient funds, nsf, bank fees, credit union, union, BEU
Maricle, et al. v. AgReliant Genetics, LLC
Maricle, et al. v. AgReliant Genetics, LLC
On July 29, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Maricle v. AgReliant Genetics, LLC, Case No. 2019L000481 (Ill. Cir. Madison County). This lawsuit alleges that AgReliant violated the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (“BIPA”) by requiring their current and/or former employees to submit their finger scan for timekeeping purposes without first providing the requisite disclosures or obtaining the requisite consent. Final Approval was granted December 10, 2020, establishing a Settlement Fund of $330,000.00 to be paid to all Class Members who did not choose to submit a Request for Exclusion. The Settlement also provided two years of dark web identity theft protection services to Class Members who submitted timely and valid claims. Payments were issued on or about January 19, 2021.
MAR
Mark Kokoszki, et al. v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc.
Mark Kokoszki, et al. v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc.
On February 7, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Kokoszki v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-10302 (E.D. Mich.). The settlement provided benefits for all persons with a Michigan street address who subscribed to a Playboy publication between January 1, 2016 and July 30, 2016 to be delivered to a Michigan street address and who did not opt out of Playboy’s information sharing service. Final approval was granted on August 19, 2020. All eligible class members have been paid.
On March 30, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Marlena Rosado v. Barry University, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-21813-JEM. The settlement provided payments for Barry University students who were actively enrolled in non-online classes for the Spring 2020 semester at Barry University as of March 1, 2020, and who paid tuition, room and board and/or fees when Barry University transitioned to remote learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Final approval was granted on September 10, 2021. All eligible class members have been paid.
BRY
Barry Spring 2020, Barry Spring 2020 Refund, Barry Spring 2020 Refund Settlement
Martin, et. al. v. Lindenwood University
Martin, et. al. v. Lindenwood University
On January 06, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Martin v. Lindenwood University, Case No. 4:20-cv-01128-RLW. The settlement provided payments for Lindenwood University students who paid Defendant tuition or fees in the Spring 2020 Semester (including in connection with any school terms or courses offered in the Spring 2020) for educational services that, absent the COVID-19 pandemic, would have been provided in-person, and whose tuition and fees have not been refunded. Final approval was granted on May 11, 2022. All eligible class members have been paid.
LNN
Martinelli v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.
Martinelli v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.
On September 28, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit,Martinelli v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01733-MCE-DB. The settlement provided payments for all individuals who did not have Proof of Purchase of up to 4 tubs of Benecol Spreads purchased between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011, and for individuals who provided Proof of Purchase of up to the total paid for all tubs bought during the Class Period. Final Approval was granted on September 9, 2022. All eligible class members have been paid.
MJJ
Benecol Spreads
Martinez Oliva, et al. vs. Rock Fish, LLC et al.
Martinez Oliva, et al. vs. Rock Fish, LLC et al.
On February 5, 2021 the Court entered an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in an action, Martinez Oliva, et al. vs. Rock Fish, LLC et al., Case No. BC658207 (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County). The settlement provides for a fund of $400,000.00, to be paid to all current and former non-exempt employees who were employed by Defendants Rock Fish, LLC (“Rock Fish MB”) or Rock’N Fish 2, LLC (“Rock Fish LA Live”) at the restaurants located at 120 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, California 90266, and/or 800 West Olympic Blvd. A-160, Los Angeles, California 90015, during the time period from April 18, 2013 to November 23, 2019.
rkf
restaurant, restaurants, Manhattan Beach, employed, employees, Rock Fish, Rock, Fish, Rock'N Fish
Maxim Healthcare Settlement
Maxim Healthcare Settlement
On February 4, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Moodie v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Case No. 2:14-cv-03471-FMO (United States District Court Central District of California). The settlement provides for persons who were hired by Maxim between May 5, 2009 and August 27, 2012, executed a background check authorization and release form, and for whom Maxim procured a consumer report before August 27, 2012. Final approval was granted on November 12, 2019. All claims have been processed and all eligible class members have been paid.
MAX
max
MB BlueTEC Settlement
MB BlueTEC Settlement
On September 16, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement agreement with Mercedes-Bez in the class action, In Re Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litigation, Case No. 16-cv-881 (KM) (ESK) (In the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey). The settlement provided for benefits to former owners of eligible vehicles as well as current owners who received the Approved Emissions Modification. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
On December 16, 2020, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Paula Parks McClintock v. Enterprise Crude Oil LLC. Case No. 16-cv-00136-KEW (The United States District Court for Eastern District of Oklahoma), for Defendant's alleged failure to pay statutory interest on payments made by Defendant (or on behalf of Defendant) outside the time periods set forth in the PRSA for production proceeds from oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $5,900,000.00. Final approval was granted on March 26, 2021. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
ent
McClintock-Continuum Settlement
McClintock-Continuum Settlement
On November 22, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit McClintock v. Continuum Producer Services, LLC, Case No. 6:17-cv-00259-JAG (E.D. Okla.) The settlement provided for cash benefits of $900,000.00. Final approval was granted on June 4, 2020, and the Net Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
PPM
McClure v. eviCore
McClure v. eviCore
On October 26, 2020, the Court entered a Final Order and Judgment in a class action, Jerri McClure, et al. v. eviCore healthcare MSI, LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-03272-RLW (United States District Court in Eastern District of Missouri). The settlement provides for a fund of $2,269,040.57, to be paid to persons who were employed by eviCore healthcare MSI, LLC (“eviCore”) as non-exempt clinical or non-clinical customer service representative, physician support representative, and/or consumer engagement representative, who was (1) primarily responsible for taking or making inbound or outbound calls, (2) assigned to work for one of Defendant’s call centers in Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, New York, South Carolina, and Tennessee (collectively “Call Center Employees”), and (3) worked overtime during the period of December 13, 2016 - September 30, 2020 (excluding weeks worked in Department 1480). The settlement also provides for a fund of $3,292.77, to be paid to persons who worked in Missouri. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
mce
McGraw v. GEICO General Insurance
McGraw v. GEICO General Insurance
On September 25, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement, McGraw v. Geico General Insurance Company, 15-2-07829-7 (Pierce County Superior Court, Washington State) for up to $6,538,400. Final approval was granted on February 12, 2021. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
ggi
GGI, GEICO, Auto Insurance, McGraw, GEICO General Insurance, underinsured, motorist, property damage, UMPD
McKnight Realty Co. v. Bravo Arkoma, LLC, et al.
McKnight Realty Co. v. Bravo Arkoma, LLC, et al.
On September 6, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a Settlement in a class action lawsuit, McKnight Realty Co. v Bravo Arkoma, LLC, et al., 17-cv-00308-KEW (E.D. Okla.) The settlement provided $1,300,000.00 in cash benefits. Final approval was granted on December 21, 2018, and the Settlement Proceeds were distributed in accordance with the terms of the Settlement.
BRV
McKnight v. Bravo Arkoma
McKnight v. Bravo Arkoma
On April 12, 2022, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, McKnight Realty Company v. Bravo Arkoma, LLC, Case No. 6:20-cv-00428-KEW (United States District Court for Eastern District of Oklahoma), for Defendant’s alleged failure to pay statutory interest on payments made outside the time periods set forth in the Production Revenue Standards Act, 52 O.S. § 570.1, et seq. for oil-and-gas production proceeds from oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $2,600,000.00. Final approval was granted on July 18, 2022, and the settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
MCK
McNeal v. AccentCare, Inc.
McNeal v. AccentCare, Inc.
The lawsuit was filed by Sharina McNeal, et al., (Plaintiffs) on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, against AccentCare, Inc. for the following allegations: (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (4) failure to timely pay owed compensation; (5) unlawful and/or unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code; and (6) civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act. Among other things, Plaintiffs contend that AccentCare did not properly compensate Care Partners for working 24-hour shifts. The lawsuit seeks money and other relief from Defendants.
ACN
McNeill v. Citation Settlement
McNeill v. Citation Settlement
On September 21, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, McNeill v. Citation Oil & Gas Corp., Case No. 17-cv-00121-KEW (E.D. Okla.) The settlement provides for $3,000,000.00 in cash benefits. Final approval was granted on January 14, 2019, and the Gross Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
MVC
McWilliams v. City of Long Beach
McWilliams v. City of Long Beach
On March 28, 2018, the Court approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, McWilliams v. City of Long Beach, BC361469 (California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles). The settlement provided for $16,600,000, and final approval was granted on October 30, 2018. All claims have been processed, and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
clb
MedImpact Settlement
MedImpact Settlement
On October 4, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Gehrich, et al. v. Howe, et al., Case No. 37-2018-00041295-CU-SL-CTL (Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego). The Settlement provides for an offer from MedImpact to purchase all stock and options held by stockholders and optionholders. Final approval was granted on December 13, 2019. All Letters of Transmittal have been processed and all eligible Class Members received payments for tendered shares and options.
MIP
Mendiola. v. Kingspan Light & Air, LLC
Mendiola. v. Kingspan Light & Air, LLC
On April 5, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Mendiola. v. Kingspan Light & Air, LLC, Case No. 2021-L-00000613 (Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois). The settlement was brought on behalf of all persons who used the finger scan biometric Time-Keeping System while working for Defendant within the State of Illinois between May 1, 2019, through August 18, 2021, who have not signed a release in relation to such Time-Keeping System.
On Jun 14, 2016, the Court approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, State Ex Rel. Robert Merrill, Trustee, et al., v. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Reswources, et al., Case No. 04-cv-01080. The settlement provided for the payment of valid claims for compensation submitted by members of the Settlement Class and the refund of submerged lands lease rental payments made between May 28, 1998 and May 20, 2015, for any leased lands located between OHWM and the natural shoreline. The Court granted final approval on October 29, 2016, and benefits were distributed to claimants in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
ONR
Messner, et al. v. Cambridge Real Estate Services, Inc. et al.
Messner, et al. v. Cambridge Real Estate Services, Inc. et al.
On March 17, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Messner, et al. v. Cambridge Real Estate Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 19CV28815 (Multnomah County Circuit Court of the State of Oregon). The settlement provides for each set of tenants who rented a unit managed by Defendants (Cambridge Real Estate Services, Inc., Gladstone Forest Units, LLC, Sue Rae/Gladstone Forest, LLC, and GF – JP, LLC) from the time period between June 28, 2018 and December 1, 2019.
mcr
Metzner, et al. v. Quinnipiac University
Metzner, et al. v. Quinnipiac University
On December 16, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Metzner, et al., v. Quinnipiac University, Case No. 3:20-cv-00784-KAD. The settlement provided payments to Quinnipiac undergraduates or graduate students for whom any amount of tuition and/or fees was paid from any source (e.g., the student’s own funds, funding from a parent or other family member, loan, or non-Quinnipiac scholarship) to Defendant for the Spring 2020 Semester, and whose tuition and fees have not been refunded in their entirety. Final approval was granted on April 10, 2023. All eligible class members have been paid.
QPC
Miller v. DCP Operating Company
Miller v. DCP Operating Company
On April 12, 2021, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Donald D. Miller Revocable Family Trust v. DCP Operating Company, LP and DCP Midstream, LP Case No. 6:18-cv-00199-JH (United States District Court for Eastern District of Oklahoma), for Defendant's alleged failure to pay statutory interest on payments made for oil and gas production proceeds from oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $9,900,000.00. Final approval was granted on June 29, 2021. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
dcp
Miller v. Mutual of Enumclaw, et al.
Miller v. Mutual of Enumclaw, et al.
On August 14, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Miller v. Mutual of Enumclaw, et al., Case No. 19-2-12357-1 (Wash. Super. Pierce) The settlement provided for cash benefits totaling a maximum $1,386,000.00 for Washington insureds who paid for repairs to certain insured vehicles under the UIM PD provision of a policy with Defendants. Final approval was granted on December 11, 2020, and the Settlement Fund has been distributed to participating Class Members in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
mme
Millien v. The Madison Square Garden Company
Millien v. The Madison Square Garden Company
On August 8, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Clint Millien and Felipe Kelly v. The Madison Square Garden Company and MSGN Holdings, L.P., Case No. 17-cv-04000 (S.D. NY.). The settlement provided payments for individuals who either applied for a job in New York City between May 8, 2014 and August 8, 2019, and were denied employment with MSG because they failed to fully/accurately disclose criminal history, or who were denied employment with MSG based on the content of their background check report at some point between August 26, 2015 and August 8, 2019. Final approval was granted on August 7, 2020. All eligible class members have been paid.
MSG
Milstead v. Robert Fiance Beauty Schools
Milstead v. Robert Fiance Beauty Schools
On March 15, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Milstead v. Robert Fiance Beauty Schools, CAM-L-328-16 (Sup. Ct. of New Jersey, Camden County). The settlement provided for $450,000 in service vouchers, redeemable for student-provided services at a Robert Fiance Beauty School. Final approval was granted on July 1, 2019.
On August 30, 2022, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, John C. Mitchell, Jr. v. Red Bluff Resources Operating, LLC, Case No. CJ-2021-323 (District Court in and for Canadian County, State of Oklahoma), for, among other things, the alleged nonpayment of statutory interest on the proceeds from the sale of oil and natural gas and their constituents. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $1,100,000.00. Final approval was granted on January 17, 2023, and the settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
BLF
Miyanna Joye v. Richemont North America, Inc.
Miyanna Joye v. Richemont North America, Inc.
On February 1, 2022 the Court entered Final Approval Order in a class action Miyanna Joye v. Richemont North America, Inc., Case No. 650722/2020 (In the Supreme Court for the State of New York, County of New York). The settlement provided for monetary payments, with a total of Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($800,000.00) to settle the lawsuit. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
jye
Moeller v. Condé Nast
Moeller v. Condé Nast
On October 24, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Moeller v. Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. d/b/a Condé Nast, Case No. 15—cv-05671-NRB (S.D. NY). The settlement provides for individuals who, from July 20, 2009 through July 30, 2016, subscribed to a Conde Nast publication for delivery to a Michigan street address. Final approval was granted on March 6, 2019. All eligible class members have been paid.
On April 7, 2021, the court granted final approval to a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Antonio Molina, et al., v. Dart International, a Corporation, et al., Case No. BC507473 (Superior Court of the State of California). The settlement provides for a fund of $675,000 to be paid to individuals that were employed as non-exempt warehouse employees at the warehouse located at 1430 S. Eastman Avenue, Commerce, California 90023, either by Dart International, a Corporation or Dart Entities, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), or by Tri-State Staffing or Tri-State Employer Services (collectively, “TriState”), At any time during the period from May 1, 2009 through February 27, 2015. Plaintiffs alleged the following claims against Defendants: (1) failure to provide required meal periods; (2) failure to provide required rest periods; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to pay minimum wages; (5) failure to pay all wages due to discharged or quitting employees; (6) failure to maintain required records; (7) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (8) failure to indemnify employees for necessary business expenditures incurred in the discharge of duties; (9) unfair and unlawful business practices; and (10) penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). The Defendant denied the claims. The Court has not determined whether Plaintiffs or Defendants are correct, and by reaching a settlement, the parties have agreed to the benefits as described in the Settlement Agreement. The Gross Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
mdi
Monplaisir, et al. v. Integrated Tech Group, LLC and ITG Communications, LLC
Monplaisir, et al. v. Integrated Tech Group, LLC and ITG Communications, LLC
This lawsuit is brought on behalf of current and former non-exempt, employees employed by ITG as Technicians, during the time-period March 21, 2016, through the present, throughout the United States.
This litigation alleges, among other things, that ITG’s current and former employees who worked as Technicians:
1. failed to receive payment for all hours worked, including, without limitation, for time spent working off-the-clock before and after scheduled shifts, and for time spent working during meal and rest breaks; and
2. failed to receive all piece-rate compensation to which they earned;
3. failed to receive all wages owed to them, including straight-time and overtime pay for all hours worked; and
4. that ITG failed to make, keep, and preserve required accurate records of all hours worked by the employees.
ITG
Morel, et al. v. Lions Gate Entertainment Inc., et al.
Morel, et al. v. Lions Gate Entertainment Inc., et al.
On December 7, 2017, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a lawsuit was filed by current and former Parking Production Assistants ("PPAs") asserting that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law by not paying the PPAs correctly for all of the hours, including overtime hours, that they worked. Final approval was granted on May 15, 2018, and Settlement Checks were distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
LIO
Moss v. United Airlines
Moss v. United Airlines
On October 16, 2018, and amended on November 27, 2018 the Court certified a class action lawsuit, Michael Moss v. United Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-CV-08496 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division). The court additionally ordered on April 29, 2019 that a notice be sent out to the class members regarding the pendency of the class action. Preliminary approval was granted on June 16, 2020. All opt-in notices have been received and processed.
MSU
MSU Counseling & Mental Health Services Fund, Michigan State University Counseling & Mental Health Services Fund, Larry Nassar
Murphy Oil USA Settlement
Murphy Oil USA Settlement
On April 1, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Holt v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00911-RV-CJK (N.D. Fla). The settlement provides coupons for $1.00 off to all persons who purchased products at Murphy stores (excluding stores in Missouri and Texas) and were charged and paid sales tax on the full, undiscounted price of products purchased with a discount funded all or in part by Murphy, within the statutory period(s). Final approval was granted on September 20, 2019. All claims have been processed and all eligible class members have received their coupon benefit.
UNY
Unytite BIPA,
Unytite Settlement,
Fingerprinting Settlement,
Biometric Information Privacy Act,
Murphy v Unytite,
Murphy v Unytite Settlement
Music Publisher's Settlement
Music Publisher's Settlement
MPS
MyFord Touch Class Action Settlement
MyFord Touch Class Action Settlement
On December 17, 2019, the court granted final approval to a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, MyFord Touch Consumer Litigation Settlement. The settlement provided for individuals who purchased or leased a MyFord Touch-equipped vehicle or MyLincoln Touch-equipped vehicle from a Ford or Lincoln Dealership before August 9, 2013, in the states of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Washington. Plaintiffs alleged that MFTs on these vehicles were defective, which Ford denied. The Court has not determined whether Plantiffs or Ford are correct, and by reaching a settlement, the parties have agreed to the benefits as described in the Settlement Agreement. Distribution to Original Owners and Valid Claim Filers is complete in accordance with the terms of the Settlement.
MFT
frd
Mylan Securities Litigation
Mylan Securities Litigation
This matter was dismissed by the Court.
myn
NantHealth, Inc. Securities Litigation
NantHealth, Inc. Securities Litigation
On November 22, 2021, The Court approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al., No. 1:16-cv-00112-MN, United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The settlement provided for $35,000,000.00. Final approval was granted on September 10, 2020. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
nhi
Nash Trust Settlement
Nash Trust Settlement
On January 23, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Shelly Nash Fitzgerald, as Trustee of the Nash Family Mineral Trust UTA dated October 27, 1992 v. Lime Rock Resources Operating Company, Inc., Case No. CJ-2017-31 (District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma). The settlement provides for $1,700,000.00, subject to the conditions and qualifications set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Final approval was granted on April 24, 2019. All claims have been processed and all eligible class members have been paid.
NAS
Natale et al. v. 9199-4467 Quebec Inc. d/b/a Earth Rated
Natale et al. v. 9199-4467 Quebec Inc. d/b/a Earth Rated
On June 8, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Swetz, et al v. GSK Consumer Health, Inc, Case No. 7:20-cv-04731 (The United States District Court for Southern District of New York). The settlement provided for $6.500,000.00. Final approval was granted on November 22, 2021, and the Settlement benefits have been distributed to all eligible class members in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
ben
National Benefiber Settlement, Benefiber Settlement, Swetz v. GSK, White v. GSK, GSK, GSK Consumer Health, GlaxoSmithKline, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings, Benefiber Healthy Shape, Benefiber Original, JND, Benefiber Prebiotic Powder, Benefiber Claim, Benefiber Claim Form, Prebiotic, Powder
Navar, et al. v. Auto Buyline Systems, Inc., et al.
Navar, et al. v. Auto Buyline Systems, Inc., et al.
On July 28, 2021 the Court entered a Judgment in a class action Navar v. ABS Auto Auctions Case No. BC716026 (In the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles). The settlement provided for monetary awards to all were employed by Auto Buyline Systems, Inc., ABS Auto Auction and/or Tom Harmon as a nonexempt hourly employee in California between August 7, 2014, and February 8, 2021 as shown in the Defendant’s record. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
nab
abs, navar
Navarette-Acosta v. National Vision Inc.
Navarette-Acosta v. National Vision Inc.
On February 27, 2021, the Court granted preliminary approval in a class action settlement, Navarette-Acosta v. National Vision, Inc. d/b/a America’s Best Contacts and Eyeglasses. The settlement provided for individuals who were employed by and worked for America’s Best as an exempt-classified General Manager in California at any time from September 13, 2015 through February 27, 2021. Final approval was granted on July 13, 2021 and the Gross Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
On June 12, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, In re Navistar MaxxForce Engines Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, No. 1:14-CV-10318 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiffs alleged that certain model year 2011-2014 commercial trucks manufactured by Navistar, Inc., and Navistar International Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) were sold equipped with a defective EGR emissions system. Final approval of the Settlement was granted on January 3, 2020, establishing the Settlement Fund of $135 Million to be paid to Class Members who owned or leased Class Vehicles during the Class period, and who submitted a timely and valid claim. Payments to all Class Members with approved Cash or Prove-Up claims were issued on or about October 28, 2021. The unclaimed balance of the Settlement Fund has been distributed cy pres, pursuant to a Court Order.
nav
Navy Federal Representment NSF Fee Settlement
Navy Federal Representment NSF Fee Settlement
On October 27, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval to a settlement in Litigation alleging that Navy Federal Credit Union ("Defendant") breached its contract with member Account Holders by improperly assessing and collecting Representment NSF Fees on certain transactions. The settlement established a Settlement Fund of $16.0 million. Final approval was granted on April 8, 2021, and the Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
NVY
Naylor-Chaparral Settlement
Naylor-Chaparral Settlement
On December 9, 2020, the Court granted final approval to a settlement in In re: Chaparral Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 20-11947 (MFW) (Bankr. D. Del.) The settlement provided for cash benefits of more than $2,500,000.00. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
nay
naylor, energy, chaparral, NAY
Nesbitt v. Postmates, Inc.
Nesbitt v. Postmates, Inc.
Nesbitt, et al. (the "Plaintiffs") filed a class action lawsuit that alleges that Postmates, Inc. ("Postmates") violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) in two ways. First, Plaintiffs allege that Postmates failed to provide proper legally required disclosures to individuals who signed up to be couriers utilizing Postmates’ platform prior to obtaining consumer reports on them. Second, Plaintiffs allege that Postmates failed to provide individuals who signed up to be couriers utilizing Postmates’ platform with a copy of their consumer reports and a notice of their rights before taking adverse action against them. Plaintiffs allege that Postmates procured and used these consumer reports for “employment purposes.” Defendant disputes Plaintiffs’ allegations and denies all liability to Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class. The parties have agreed to resolve the lawsuit against Postmates through a settlement.
On April 19, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Nicole Smith v. D&W Fine Pack LLC., Case No. 2021-L-00182 (Ill. Cir. DuPage.) The settlement provided for cash benefits of more than $1,116,700.00. Final approval was granted on November 2, 2021, and the Settlement benefits have been distributed to all eligible class members in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
Nozzi v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles
Nozzi v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles
Nozzi, et al. (the "Plaintiffs") filed a class action lawsuit that alleges that Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, et al. (the "Defendants") reduced the Voucher Payment Standard (“VPS”) between July 2005 and July 2006 without providing adequate notice to Section 8 recipients, thereby violating various federal and state law. The VPS is the maximum monthly subsidy that supplements the amount paid by Section 8 recipients for rent and utilities. Plaintiffs allege that HACLA did not provide the required one-year notice prior to rolling back housing benefits to Section 8 recipients. Further, the information provided to Section 8 recipients was not a formal administrative notice and failed to inform recipients that their out-of-pocket rent payments would be increasing. Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ allegations and deny all liability to Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class. The parties have agreed to resolve the lawsuit against HACLA through a settlement.
This lawsuit concerns all persons and entities who purchased yellow taxi medallions from the City of New York or the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (collectively, the “Defendants”) through three public auctions conducted in 2013 and 2014, or their successors or assigns. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants published inflated, false, and misleading yellow taxi medallion price reports depicting an unbroken rise in the market prices of medallions when, in fact, those prices had leveled or were on the decline. Defendants deny the allegations. The Court in this matter has certified the lawsuit as a class action.
On August 1, 2009, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) and CINTAS Corporation entered into a Conciliation Agreement in relation to alleged hiring and/or compensation discrimination violations among Production job titles within Job Group 8. The settlement provided for cash benefits totaling over 224984.64 for Eligible Class Members who submitted a timely and valid Claim Form. The settlement funds have been distributed to participating Class Members in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Oliveira et. al. v. New Prime, Inc. and Haworth, et al. v. New Prime, Inc.
Oliveira et. al. v. New Prime, Inc. and Haworth, et al. v. New Prime, Inc.
On January 26, 2021, the Court entered an Order and Judgment in a class action, Oliveira et. al. v. New Prime, Inc. and Haworth, et al. v. New Prime, Inc., Case No. 6:19-03025-CV-RK (F.C. W.D. Mo.). This lawsuit alleged that Prime failed to properly pay trainees during orientation at Prime, and that Prime's pay practices with respect to employee drivers and independent contractors violated federal and state wage and hour laws. The Settlement provided for a fund of $28,000,000.00, to be paid to all approved Class Members who attended training to become truck drivers for Prime and/or have driven for Prime as employee drivers and/or as independent contractor drivers who have leased their trucks through Prime at any time since October 2, 2012 through May 8, 2020, and all individuals who have otherwise attended training in Missouri to become truck drivers for Prime at any time since March 4, 2010 through May 8, 2020, except for the named plaintiffs in Montgomery v. New Prime, Inc., 8:17-00321(C.D. Cal.). All checks in this matter have been disbursed, and administration of the Settlement is complete.
On March 12, 2018 the Court approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Schwartz v. Opus Bank Case No. 2:16-cv-07991-AB-JPR. The settlement provided for $17,000,000. Final approval was granted on November 5, 2018. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
OPS
Ortez v. UPS, Inc
Ortez v. UPS, Inc
Former seasonal drivers of UPS have sued UPS in a collective action, claiming that UPS violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the minimum wage for all hours worked. The Honorable Judge Christine M. Arguello and Magistrate S. Kato Crews are overseeing this lawsuit, which is called Ortez et al. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01202-CMA-SKC
UPS
Ostendorf v. Grange Indemnity Insurance Company
Ostendorf v. Grange Indemnity Insurance Company
On September 8, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Ostendorf v. Grange Indemnity Insurance Company, Case No. 2:19-cv-01147 (S.D. Ohio) The settlement provided for cash benefits totaling a maximum $12,667,804.00 for Ohio insureds who submitted physical damage claims for their vehicles that resulted in a total loss claim payment during the Class Period. Final approval was granted on December 30, 2020, and the Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
grg
Pablo Martinez v. Ronpak, Inc.
Pablo Martinez v. Ronpak, Inc.
On June 10, 2023 the Court entered Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Entering Judgement Thereon in a class action Pablo Martinez v. Ronpak, Inc., Case No. RIC1901307 (In the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Riverside). The settlement provided for monetary awards to current or former hourly empoyees who worked for RONPAK, INC., in the State of California at any time from February 5, 2015 through April 30, 2020. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
PSP
Tuna, End Payer Purchaser, Chicken of the Sea, COSI, Canned tuna, PS3
Paetzold, et al. v. Metropolitan District Commission
Paetzold, et al. v. Metropolitan District Commission
On April 21, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Paetzold, et al. v. Metropolitan District Commission, Case No. X07-HHD-CV-18-6090558-S (Connecticut Superior Court – Hartford County). Plaintiffs alleged that the Metropolitan District Commission (“MDC”) entered into implied contracts with customers and breached those implied contracts by charging water service customers in four towns (East Granby, Farmington, Glastonbury, and South Windsor) an unlawful surcharge on these customers’ water bills. Final approval of the Settlement was granted on September 3, 2020, establishing the Settlement Fund of $7,680,000.00 to be paid to Class Members who did not choose to exclude themselves from the class. Payments to all remaining Class Members were issued on or about February 12, 2021. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
MDC
Palmateer v. Les Schwab
Palmateer v. Les Schwab
On September 2, 2020, the Court approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Michael Palmateer and Shane Hedin v. Les Schwab Tire Centers of Portland, Inc. and Les Schwab Warehouse Center, Inc., Case No. 17CV22189 (Oregon State Circuit Court, County of Multnomah). The settlement provided for $16,007,217.94. Final approval was granted on November 6, 2020. All settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
LES
Palmer v. City of Anaheim
Palmer v. City of Anaheim
On June 8, 2020, the Court certified a lawsuit to proceed as a class action, Palmer v. City of Anaheim, Case No. 30-2017-00938646-CU-JR-CXC (County of Orange Superior Court). On August 28, 2020, JND mailed the Court-approved notice to all identified class members. Please visit the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange Superior Court’s website for further updates regarding this matter.
cau
Parker v. Universal Settlement
Parker v. Universal Settlement
A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit Parker, et al. v. Universal Pictures, et al., M.D. Fla. Case No. 6:16-CV-01193-CEM-DCI, claiming that Defendants Legendary Pictures, Universal Pictures, and Handstack impermissibly sent text messages relating to the release of the film Warcraft to wireless telephone numbers without consent of the recipients in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 47 U.S.C. § 227. Defendants deny the allegations in the lawsuit, and the Court has not decided who is right.
UNP
Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.
Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.
On September 11, 2018, the Court approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00783-K. The settlement provided for $9,500,000. Final approval was granted on April 22, 2020. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
On December 3, 2021, the Court granted final approval to a settlement in a lawsuit, Pauper Petroleum LLC v. Kaiser-Francis Oil Company, Case No. 4:19-cv-00514-JFH-JFJ (N.D. Okla.) alleging that Defendant failed to pay statutory interest on allegedly late payments under Oklahoma law. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $1,600,000.00.
On January 23, 2023, the Court granted final approval to a settlement in the lawsuit alleging that Defendant underpaid royalty on gas and gas constituents from oil-and-gas wells in Oklahoma. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $10,000,000.00.
All settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
PKF
Oil, Oklahoma, interest, roylaty, owner, Oklahoma Oil and Gas Well
On March 6, 2018, The Court approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Perez v. Higher One Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-755-AWT. The settlement provided for $7,500,000.00. Final approval was granted on July 10, 2018. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
hos
Perez v. Wells Fargo, N.A.
Perez v. Wells Fargo, N.A.
On August 21, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Perez, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 3:17-cv-00454-MMC (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Division). The settlement provided payments for individuals residing in the United States with a valid, unexpired DACA status at the time they applied to and were denied at least one unsecured credit card, secured or unsecured small business loan, student loan, or unsecured personal loan between January 30, 2015 and August 21, 2020, or for home mortgage between January 29, 2018 and August 21, 2020. Final approval was granted on January 8, 2021. All eligible class members have been paid.
Former Petco Assistant Managers (“AMs”) sued Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., Petco Holdings, Inc., Petco Holdings, Inc. LLC, and Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. (together “Petco”), alleging that they were not paid overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The AMs claim that they are owed money under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and/or the state laws of Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. Petco denies these allegations and asserts that its pay practices for AMs complied with all legal requirements. Without admitting liability, Petco agreed to a settlement to avoid further litigation.
PTC
Peterson, et al. v. Apria Healthcare Group, Inc.
Peterson, et al. v. Apria Healthcare Group, Inc.
On June 17, 2020, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Peterson v. Apria Healthcare Group, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-00856-GAP-LHP (M.D. Fla.), alleging that Defendant and its vendors placed calls and sent text messages to cellular telephones in violation of federal law. Final Judgment was entered on November 2, 2020. Eligible claimants received a check in an amount up to $50.00.
ptr
Peña v. Wells Fargo, N.A.
Peña v. Wells Fargo, N.A.
On August 21, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Peña, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 3:19-cv-04065-MMC (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Division). The settlement provided payments for individuals residing in the United States with a valid, unexpired DACA status at the time they applied to and were denied at least one direct auto loan between July 16, 2017 and August 21, 2020. Final approval was granted on January 8, 2021. All eligible class members have been paid.
PWF
PHH Lender Placed Insurance Litigation
PHH Lender Placed Insurance Litigation
On July 27, 2017, the Court granted final approval of the Settlement in a class action lawsuit, In re PHH Lender Placed Insurance Litigation, 1:12-cv-1117-NLH-KMW (D. N.J.). The Settlement provided a credit or payment to Eligible Class Members equal to 6% of the Net Premium or 11.5% of the Net Premium depending on when the LPI was placed on the Class Member’s property and the type of insurance that was lender-placed. Settlement benefits were sent to all Eligible Class Members.
APO
Plains Oil, All American Pipeline, Santa Barbara, Plains Oil Spill, Plains Oil Spill settlement, Plains Oil Spill class action, Santa Barbara Oil Spill, Santa Barbara Oil Spill settlement, Santa Barbara Oil Spill class action, All American Oil Spill, All American Pipeline Oil Spill, Coastal Oil Spill, California Oil Spill, Commercial Fisher Oil Spill, Fisher Oil Spill, Fisherman Oil Spill, Fish Processor Oil Spill, Coastal Property Oil Spill, Beach Oil Spill, Southern California Oil Spill
Plymouth County Retirement System v. GTT Communications, Inc.
Plymouth County Retirement System v. GTT Communications, Inc.
On April 14, 2022, the Court approved the distribution in the Order Approving Distribution of Net Settlement Fund for the Plymouth County Retirement System v. GTT Communications, Inc. or GTT Securities Litigation. The initial distribution occurred, and payments have been made to all authorized Claimants.
gtt
Podawiltz v. Swisher International, Inc.
Podawiltz v. Swisher International, Inc.
On February 7, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Podawiltz v. Swisher International, Inc., et al. The settlement provides for all persons, entities, or organizations who, from August 25, 2015 through February 7, 2019, purchased Swisher cigar products under any of the following promotions in any of the fifty States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico: “5 for the price of 3”; “3 for the price of 2”; “buy 1 get 1 free”; or “buy 4 get 1 free.”. Final approval was granted on August 9, 2019. All claims have been processed and all eligible class members have been mailed benefit vouchers.
On February 25, 2021, the court ordered the class distribution for the PPG Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. On November 22, 2019 the Court Approved the calculation of claims and Plan of Allocation. The case distributed to all processed claims of eligible claimants that purchased or otherwise acquired PPG common stock between January 19, 2017 and May 10, 2018, inclusive.
On November 12, 2018, the Court approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Purcell et al. v. United Propane Gas, Inc., Case No. 14-CI-00729 (Kentucky 2nd Judicial Circuit, Division II, McCracken County). The settlement provided for refunds to all residential customers who purchased a 2013-2014 “pre-purchase ‘pre-buy keepfull’ gas supply agreement” that was intended to cover the fall and winter of 2013-2014 for personal, family, or household purposes from one of the covered propane gas suppliers. All claims have been processed and all eligible Class Members have been paid.
upg
Quezada, et al. v. ArbiterSports, LLC
Quezada, et al. v. ArbiterSports, LLC
On December 23, 2021 the Court entered an Order in a class action Quezada, et al. v. ArbiterSports, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-05193-TJS (In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania). The settlement provided for monetary and injunctive relief. The credit monitoring codes have been issued and redeemed, and all checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
ABT
Arbitersports, arbitersports class action, arbitersports settlement, arbitersports data breach, arbitersports data breach class action, arbitersports data breach settlement, athletic event software class action, athletic event software settlement, athletic event software data breach, sports software settlement, sports software data breach, arbitersports stolen data, arbitersports security breach
Racies v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC
Racies v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC
On December 15, 2017, the Court certified a class action lawsuit, Racies v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00292-HSG (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff in the lawsuit alleged that Quincy Bioscience, LLC falsely and misleadingly marketed certain Prevagen Products as providing, among other things, brain health and memory benefits. The court additionally ordered on April 1, 2019 that notice be sent out to the class members regarding the pendency of the class action. All opt-in notices have been received and processed.
On May 5, 2022 the Court entered a Final Approval Order in a class action David Ramirez v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03531 (In the District Court for the Central District of California). The settlement provided for monetary awards to all non-exempt retail store associates employed by Rite Aid in the state of California during the period of April 16, 2016 through October 12, 2021 and identified as eligible Class Members. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
RTA
Thrifty Payless
Ramos v. Hopele of Fort Lauderdale, LLC
Ramos v. Hopele of Fort Lauderdale, LLC
On July 10, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Katiria Ramos v. Hopele of Fort Lauderdale, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-cv-62100 (S.D. Fla.). The settlement provides for all persons who, from October 26, 2013 through July 10, 2019, received a text message from (i) Hopele, (ii) Hopele of Tallahassee, LLC, (iii), Hopele of Flat Iron, LLC, (iv) Hopele of Birmingham, LLC, (v) Hopele of Altamonte, LLC, and/or (vi) HLCP Partners of Birmingham, LLC without providing prior express written consent to those entities or Pandora. The case website will be updated once the Court approves the settlement and as the administration progresses. Final approval was granted on November 19, 2019. All claims have been processed and all eligible class members have been paid.
HOP
Rayburn v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.
Rayburn v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.
A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit, Rayburn v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., alleging a violation of the Ohio Uniform Commercial Code, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and the Ohio Retail Installment Sales Act. Plaintiff claims that the “Notice of Intent to Sell Property” letter that Defendant sent to Ohio customers after repossession of their vehicle violated these statutes by containing a vehicle sale date that included the phrase “on or after.” If you are a Class Member and do not opt out, these benefits are automatic.
RSC
RCC, P.S. v. Unigard Insurance Company
RCC, P.S. v. Unigard Insurance Company
On November 3rd, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit RCC, P.S. v. Unigard Insurance Company, No. 19-2-17085-9 SEA. The settlement provided payments to providers of Unigard Insurance each Class Member who submitted a timely and valid claim can recover an amount equal to the sum of Reason Code P0041, 41, X41, 99, or X402 reductions and/or denials that took on each provider’s bill(s) plus a multiplier taken since June 27, 2015. Final approval was granted on March 4, 2022. All eligible class members have been paid.
On October 29, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Reirdon v. Cimarex Energy Co., Case No. 16-cv-00445-SPS (E.D. Okla.) The settlement provided for $10,000,000.00 in cash. Final approval was granted on January 29, 2020 and the Gross Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
cfg
Reirdon v. Cimarex Energy Co.
Reirdon v. Cimarex Energy Co.
On September 28, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Reirdon v. Cimarex Energy Co., Case No. 16-cv-00113-KEW (E.D. Okla.) The settlement provided for $9,500,000.00 in cash plus Future Benefits with an estimated value of no less than $11,000,000. Final approval was granted on December 18, 2018, and the Gross Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
On May 2, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, In re Resistors Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-03820 (N.D. Cal.). The settlement provides $50,250,000 for individuals who purchased linear resistors (including through controlled subsidiaries, agents, affiliates, or joint ventures) directly from any of the Defendants from July 9, 2003 through August 1, 2014. Final approval was granted on March 24, 2020. All eligible class members have been paid.
dpp
resistor, linear, antitrust
Retry NSF Overdraft Fee Settlement
Retry NSF Overdraft Fee Settlement
On June 14, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Donald Holt v. The Cooperative Bank of Cape Cod, Case No. SUCV 2020-01178-BLS1. The settlement provided payments for all customers of Defendant who were charged Retry NSF/overdraft fees on their accounts between June 4, 2014 and March 29, 2021. Final approval was granted on October 15, 2021. All eligible class members have been paid.
ccb
cape, cod, cooperative, bank, holt, NSF, fee, overdraft, Nonsufficient
Reynaldo Suaverdez v. Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Circle K
Reynaldo Suaverdez v. Circle K Stores, Inc. d/b/a Circle K
On March 1, 2022, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Rhea v. Apache Corporation Case No. 6:14-cv-00433-JH (United States District Court for Eastern District of Oklahoma), for Defendant's alleged underpayment of royalties. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $25,000,000.00. Final approval was granted on June 23, 2022. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
Rice-Redding et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
Rice-Redding et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
On July 24, 2019, the Court granted final approval to a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Rice-Redding et al. v Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. The Settlement provided for individuals who received (1) alleged prerecorded robocalls that an auto insurance lead generation company called Variable Marketing, LLC made and transferred to Nationwide Agents asking recipients to “press 1” to receive auto insurance quotes, (2) alleged prerecorded robocalls that an auto and homeowners’ insurance lead generation company called MediaAlpha transferred (either the telephone call and/or Lead Information derived from the telephone call) to Nationwide, and (3) telephone calls that Nationwide and/or its alleged vendors made to persons registered on Nationwide’s Internal Do Not Call Registry for more than 31 days. Nationwide has denied all liability or responsibility for these calls, and alleges that it did not make or authorize them. The Court did not decide in favor of the Representative Plaintiffs or Nationwide. By reaching a settlement, the parties have agreed to the benefits as described in the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the Settlement.
NMI
Rich v. EOS Fitness Brands, LLC Settlement
Rich v. EOS Fitness Brands, LLC Settlement
The Court has granted Preliminary Approval to a proposed Settlement of a class action lawsuit (“Action”) against EOS Fitness Brand, Limited Liability Company, a Nevada Limited Liability Company (the “Fitness Facility”). On July 29, 2015, Plaintiff Gregory Rich, on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint entitled Gregory Rich v. EOS Fitness Brand, LLC, Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC1508918. Plaintiff alleges that the Fitness Facility provided a separate “Women’s Workout” area for female customers, without providing a comparable area for male customers. Plaintiff alleges that the Fitness Facility violated the Unruh Act, the Gender Tax Repeal Act, and committed an unfair business practice. The Fitness Facility denies the class claims and any wrongdoing. The Parties however have entered into a Settlement relating to the Action.
RVW
Jeni Rieger, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Excessive oil consumption
Audi Settlement
Fractured Piston
Fractured Pistons
Piston Rings
Audi
RVS
Riverside City Settlement; Riverside City Tax Settlement; Riverside City Tax Refund; Riverside GFT; Riverside Settlement; Riverside Tax Refund; Parada Settlement; Parada Tax Settlement; Parada Tax Refund; Parada v. City of Riverside; City of Riverside Utility case; City of Riverside Refund; City of Riverside Tax Settlement; General Fund Transfer Settlement; Riverside GFT Settlement; California Proposition 26; California Proposition 26 Tax Refund; California Proposition 26 Tax Settlement; Prop 26 Settlement; Prop 26 Tax Settlement; Prop 26 Tax Settlement; Prop 26 Tax Refund; retail electric utility customer; California Riverside refund; California Riverside Tax refund; California Riverside refund Settlement;
RMH Assistant Manager Overtime Case
RMH Assistant Manager Overtime Case
The lawsuit alleges that RMH misclassified AMs as “exempt” employees ineligible for overtime compensation under the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act), and failed to pay AMs overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
MRH
www.RobinhoodReferralSettlement.com , Robinhood class action, Robinhood settlement, Robinhood lawsuit, Robinhood class action settlement, Robinhood class action lawsuit, Robinhood class action payment, Robinhood class action cash payment, Robinhood class action benefit, Robinhood class action cash benefit, Robinhood settlement payment, Robinhood settlement cash payment, Robinhood settlement benefit, Robinhood settlement cash benefit, Robinhood claim, Robinhood class action claim, Robinhood settlement claim, Robinhood file a claim, Robinhood referral, Robinhood referral class action, Robinhood referral settlement, Robinhood referral lawsuit, Robinhood referral class action settlement, Robinhood referral class action lawsuit, Robinhood referral class action payment, Robinhood referral class action cash payment, Robinhood referral class action benefit, Robinhood referral class action cash benefit, Robinhood referral settlement payment, Robinhood referral settlement cash payment, Robinhood referral settlement benefit, Robinhood referral settlement cash benefit, Robinhood referral claim, Robinhood referral class action claim, Robinhood referral settlement claim, Robinhood referral file a claim, Robinhood referral program, Robinhood referral program, Robinhood referral program class action, Robinhood referral program settlement, Robinhood referral program lawsuit, Robinhood referral program class action settlement, Robinhood referral program class action lawsuit, Robinhood referral program class action payment, Robinhood referral program class action cash payment, Robinhood referral program class action benefit, Robinhood referral program class action cash benefit, Robinhood referral program settlement payment, Robinhood referral program settlement cash payment, Robinhood referral program settlement benefit, Robinhood referral program settlement cash benefit, Robinhood referral program claim, Robinhood referral program class action claim, Robinhood referral program settlement claim, Robinhood referral program file a claim, Robinhood text message, Robinhood text message class action, Robinhood text message settlement, Robinhood text message lawsuit, Robinhood text message class action settlement, Robinhood text message class action lawsuit, Robinhood text message class action payment, Robinhood text message class action cash payment, Robinhood text message class action benefit, Robinhood text message class action cash benefit, Robinhood text message settlement payment, Robinhood text message settlement cash payment, Robinhood text message settlement benefit, Robinhood text message settlement cash benefit, Robinhood text message claim, Robinhood text message class action claim, Robinhood text message settlement claim, Robinhood text message file a claim, Robinhood referral text message, Robinhood referral text message class action, Robinhood referral text message settlement, Robinhood referral text message lawsuit, Robinhood referral text message class action settlement, Robinhood referral text message class action lawsuit, Robinhood referral text message class action payment, Robinhood referral text message class action cash payment, Robinhood referral text message class action benefit, Robinhood referral text message class action cash benefit, Robinhood referral text message settlement payment, Robinhood referral text message settlement cash payment, Robinhood referral text message settlement benefit, Robinhood referral text message settlement cash benefit, Robinhood referral text message claim, Robinhood referral text message class action claim, Robinhood referral text message settlement claim, Robinhood referral text message file a claim, Robinhood referral program text message, Robinhood referral program text message class action, Robinhood referral program text message settlement, Robinhood referral program text message lawsuit, Robinhood referral program text message class action settlement, Robinhood referral program text message class action lawsuit, Robinhood referral program text message class action payment, Robinhood referral program text message class action cash payment, Robinhood referral program text message class action benefit, Robinhood referral program text message class action cash benefit, Robinhood referral program text message settlement payment, Robinhood referral program text message settlement cash payment, Robinhood referral program text message settlement benefit, Robinhood referral program text message settlement cash benefit, Robinhood referral program text message claim, Robinhood referral program text message class action claim, Robinhood referral program text message settlement claim, Robinhood referral program text message file a claim, Robinhood unsolicited messages, Robinhood unsolicited messages class action, Robinhood unsolicited messages settlement, Robinhood unsolicited messages lawsuit, Robinhood unsolicited messages class action settlement, Robinhood unsolicited messages class action lawsuit, Robinhood unsolicited messages class action payment, Robinhood unsolicited messages class action cash payment, Robinhood unsolicited messages class action benefit, Robinhood unsolicited messages class action cash benefit, Robinhood unsolicited messages settlement payment, Robinhood unsolicited messages settlement cash payment, Robinhood unsolicited messages settlement benefit, Robinhood unsolicited messages settlement cash benefit, Robinhood unsolicited messages claim, Robinhood unsolicited messages class action claim, Robinhood unsolicited messages settlement claim, Robinhood unsolicited messages file a claim, Robinhood unsolicited text messages, Robinhood unsolicited text messages class action, Robinhood unsolicited text messages settlement, Robinhood unsolicited text messages lawsuit, Robinhood unsolicited text messages class action settlement, Robinhood unsolicited text messages class action lawsuit, Robinhood unsolicited text messages class action payment, Robinhood unsolicited text messages class action cash payment, Robinhood unsolicited text messages class action benefit, Robinhood unsolicited text messages class action cash benefit, Robinhood unsolicited text messages settlement payment, Robinhood unsolicited text messages settlement cash payment, Robinhood unsolicited text messages settlement benefit, Robinhood unsolicited text messages settlement cash benefit, Robinhood unsolicited text messages claim, Robinhood unsolicited text messages class action claim, Robinhood unsolicited text messages settlement claim, Robinhood unsolicited text messages file a claim, Robinhood refer a friend, Robinhood refer a friend class action, Robinhood refer a friend settlement, Robinhood refer a friend lawsuit, Robinhood refer a friend class action settlement, Robinhood refer a friend class action lawsuit, Robinhood refer a friend class action payment, Robinhood refer a friend class action cash payment, Robinhood refer a friend class action benefit, Robinhood refer a friend class action cash benefit, Robinhood refer a friend settlement payment, Robinhood refer a friend settlement cash payment, Robinhood refer a friend settlement benefit, Robinhood refer a friend settlement cash benefit, Robinhood refer a friend claim, Robinhood refer a friend class action claim, Robinhood refer a friend settlement claim, Robinhood refer a friend file a claim, Robinhood refer-a-friend, Robinhood refer-a-friend class action, Robinhood refer-a-friend settlement, Robinhood refer-a-friend lawsuit, Robinhood refer-a-friend class action settlement, Robinhood refer-a-friend class action lawsuit, Robinhood refer-a-friend class action payment, Robinhood refer-a-friend class action cash payment, Robinhood refer-a-friend class action benefit, Robinhood refer-a-friend class action cash benefit, Robinhood refer-a-friend settlement payment, Robinhood refer-a-friend settlement cash payment, Robinhood refer-a-friend settlement benefit, Robinhood refer-a-friend settlement cash benefit, Robinhood refer-a-friend claim, Robinhood refer-a-friend class action claim, Robinhood refer-a-friend settlement claim, Robinhood refer-a-friend file a claim, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program class action, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program settlement, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program lawsuit, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program class action settlement, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program class action lawsuit, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program class action payment, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program class action cash payment, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program class action benefit, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program class action cash benefit, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program settlement payment, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program settlement cash payment, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program settlement benefit, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program settlement cash benefit, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program claim, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program class action claim, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program settlement claim, Robinhood refer a friend marketing program file a claim, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program class action, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program settlement, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program lawsuit, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program class action settlement, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program class action lawsuit, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program class action payment, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program class action cash payment, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program class action benefit, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program class action cash benefit, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program settlement payment, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program settlement cash payment, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program settlement benefit, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program settlement cash benefit, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program claim, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program class action claim, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program settlement claim, Robinhood refer-a-friend marketing program file a claim, Robinhood trading app, Robinhood trading app class action, Robinhood trading app settlement, Robinhood trading app lawsuit, Robinhood trading app class action settlement, Robinhood trading app class action lawsuit, Robinhood trading app class action payment, Robinhood trading app class action cash payment, Robinhood trading app class action benefit, Robinhood trading app class action cash benefit, Robinhood trading app settlement payment, Robinhood trading app settlement cash payment, Robinhood trading app settlement benefit, Robinhood trading app settlement cash benefit, Robinhood trading app claim, Robinhood trading app class action claim, Robinhood trading app settlement claim, Robinhood trading app file a claim, Moore v. Robinhood Financial LLC, Commercial text message, Unlawful text message
Rocchio, et. al. v. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Rocchio, et. al. v. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
On October 27, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Rocchio, et al. v. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Docket No. MID-L-003039-20. The settlement provided payments for Rutgers University students who paid for on-campus tuition/fees and other charges for the Spring 2020 semester, while Rutgers University transitioned to remote learning in March 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with New Jersey State mandates. Final approval was granted on January 28, 2022. All eligible class members have been paid.
RUT
student, fee, tuition
Rollo, et al. v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company
Rollo, et al. v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company
On September 24, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Rollo, et al. v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 2018-027720-CA-01 (Florida Circuit Court – Miami-Dade County). Plaintiffs alleged that Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal”) intentionally omitted paying any statutory interest on claims it had already approved but failed to timely pay, as is specifically required under Florida law. Final approval of the Settlement was granted on December 13, 2019, establishing the Settlement Fund of $3.5 Million to be paid to Class Members submitted a timely and valid claim. Payments to all Class Members with approved claims were issued on or about April 16, 2020. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
UPC
Rosenberg v. GEICO General Insurance Company
Rosenberg v. GEICO General Insurance Company
On December 22, 2022, the Court finally approved the settlement in the class action lawsuit, Rosenberg v. GEICO General Insurance Company, Case No. 19-cv-61422-CANNON/Hunt. The Lawsuit claimed that The GEICO Companies misinterpreted the “Billed Amount” or “BA” policy language applicable to medical charges submitted by health care providers arising from treatment to persons insured under PIP or other No-fault coverages contained in motor vehicle insurance policies issued by The GEICO Companies in Florida. The settlement provided payments for health care providers who held an assignment of benefits of the Policy from an individual insured by one of The GEICO Companies and, pursuant to that assignment, submitted a claim for reimbursement of no-fault benefits to one of The GEICO Companies during the Class Period for a charge in an amount less than the schedule of maximum charges as defined by Section 627.736(5)(a)1., Florida Statutes, where the applicable GEICO Company utilized the reason code “BA” to issue payment to the provider for 80% of the amount charged for the claim. To qualify, you must have submitted a timely valid Settlement Claim Form by November 28, 2022. All eligible claimants have been paid and the settlement administration has been completed.
ROS
Florida Billed Amount, Billed Amount, PIP, BA language, Explanation of Benefits, EOB, Explanation of Review, EOR, Billed Charges, Florida health care provider settlement, GEICO, Randy Rosenberg, Florida Motor Vehicle Insurance Settlement, Rosenberg v GEICO, Rosenberg v GEICO Class Action, Rosenberg v GEICO Settlement, GEICO General Insurance Settlement, GEICO Indemnity Settlement, GEICO Casualty Settlement, Government Employees Insurance Settlement, GEICO Class Action, GEICO Class Action Settlement, GEICO Companies Settlement, BA Class Action, BA Settlement, JND
On May 17, 2022, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Rounds, et al. v. FourPoint Energy, LLC n/k/a Unbridled Resources LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00052-P (United States District Court for Western District of Oklahoma), for Defendant’s alleged failure to pay royalties on gas used (1) off the lease premises or (2) in the manufacture of products, and for the alleged failure to pay statutory interest on oil-and-gas proceeds payments allegedly made outside the time periods set forth in the Production Revenue Standards Act, 52 O.S. § 570.1, et seq. for oil-and-gas production proceeds from oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $3,650,000.00 plus Future Benefits. Final approval was granted on August 23, 2022, and the settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
R4P
FourPoint, Unbridled, Four, Point
Royal Ahold Securities Litigation
Royal Ahold Securities Litigation
In Re Royal Ahold Securities and ERISA Litigation, Case No. 03-MD-01539-CCB, District of Maryland Northern Division, Hon. Catherine C. Blake, involved a $1.1 billion settlement against a Dutch company resulting in mailings across the globe and claims received from over 100 different countries, in numerous languages. In this case, one of the largest international class action settlements ever, JND Founder Neil Zola oversaw the entire notice mailing process to class members as well as the processing of some 275,000 claims and the ultimate distribution of the $1.1 billion settlement amount to over 225,000 claimants.
RAS
Ruppel v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.
Ruppel v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.
A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against nonprofit magazine publisher Consumer Reports, Inc. The class action lawsuit involves whether Consumer Reports, Inc. disclosed its customers’ subscription information to third parties, which is alleged to violate Michigan privacy law.
RCU
Russett, et al. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Russett, et al. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
On May 28, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Elizabeth Russett, et al. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Case No. 19-cv-07414 (S.D. NY). The settlement provided payments for customers of Northwestern Mutual with a New York mailing address who from June 21, 2016 to and through May 28, 2020 were charged by Defendant an additional rate or a differential in the rate or fee based on the method by which they chose to make payments on monthly premiums. Final approval was granted on October 6, 2020. All eligible class members have been paid.
rnm
Ryan Stier v. PEMCO Mutual Insurance Company and PEMCO Insurance Company
Ryan Stier v. PEMCO Mutual Insurance Company and PEMCO Insurance Company
On January 12, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Ryan Stier v. PEMCO Mutual Insurance Company and PEMCO Insurance Company, Case No. 18-2-018153-5 (Superior Court for the State of Washington, Pierce County). The settlement provided payments for individuals insured by PEMCO under an auto policy issued by the State of Washington who were paid by PEMCO for the total loss of their vehicle(s) under one of PEMCO’s first party coverages for a loss occurring between May 17, 2012 and April 30, 2020. Final approval was granted on May 7, 2021. All eligible class members have been paid.
PMO
Ryder et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank
Ryder et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank
On August 17, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Ryder, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. 1:19-cv-00638. The settlement provided payments for all individuals who between 2010 and 2018 (i) qualified for a home loan modification or repayment plan pursuant to the requirements of government-sponsored enterprises (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP); (ii) were not offered a home loan modification or repayment plan by Wells Fargo because of excessive attorneys’ fees being included in the loan modification decisioning process; and (iii) whose home Wells Fargo did not sell in foreclosure. Final Approval was granted on January 25, 2022. All eligible class members have been paid.
On November 2, 2017, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Albert Viesse v. Saar’s Inc., and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 17-2-07783-6 SEA (Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The settlement provides for all consumers to whom Saar’s, during the period July 20, 2014 through July 18, 2016, provided an electronically printed receipt oat the point of a credit sale or transaction at any of its Saar’s or Super Saver Foods stores, on which receipt Saar’s printed the expiration date of the consumer’s credit card or debit card. The case website will be updated once the Court approves the settlement and as the administration progresses. Final approval was granted on March 5, 2018. All claims have been processed and all eligible class members have been paid.
On February 4, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Salgado v. UPMC Jameson, et al., Case No. 30008-18 (Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania). The settlement provides payments to eligible class members who: (1) went to UPMC Jameson for internal prostate, obstetrical and/or gynecological exams between October 2017 and October 2018; (2) to whom UPMC sent certified letters advising them of risk of infection or illness; and (3) who thereafter underwent blood testing or other testing requiring a needle stick.
suj
Sanchez v. Centene Corp.
Sanchez v. Centene Corp.
The court ordered the Distribution on May 4, 2021, for the Centene Securities Litigation in the Order Approving Distribution Plan. The case distributed to all processed claims of eligible claimants that that fit the eligible Settlement definition.
CTE
Sanders, et al. v. Global Radar Acquisition, LLC, et al.
Sanders, et al. v. Global Radar Acquisition, LLC, et al.
On July 15, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Shawana Sanders and Kenyatta Williams, et al., v. Global Radar Acquisition, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-00555 (M.D. Fla.). The settlement provides $3,653,650 for individuals who were the subject of a consumer report furnished by Global HR Research for employment purposes to A1 HR Continuum, or Accesspoint between July 11, 2013 and January 11, 2019. Final approval was granted on November 12, 2019. All eligible class members have been paid.
GRA
Sandoval et al. v. Merlex Stucco, Inc.
Sandoval et al. v. Merlex Stucco, Inc.
On June 7, 2021, the Court granted Final Approval to the settlement in the class action lawsuit known as Sandoval et al. v. Merlex Stucco (Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles). The settlement class includes all individuals in California who had stucco manufactured or sold by Merlex applied to their homes on or after May 6, 2013 that later developed the appearance of rust spots. Eligible Class Members who filed valid claims were eligible for repair or replacement of the product on their homes.
On March 3, 2023, the Court entered an Order and Judgement Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, in the class action Anurag Gupta, et al. v. Aeries Software, Inc. Case No. 8:20-cv-00995 (In the United States District Court, Central District of California). The Defendant agreed to pay a total of $1,750,000.00 ("Gross Settlement Amount") to settle this Action, inclusive of attorney's fees, class representative awards, administration costs, and monetary awards to Participating Class Members. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
AEM
Aeries Software, Inc.,
Aeries Class Action,
Aeries Settlement,
Aeries Data Breach,
Aeries Stolen Data,
Aeries Security Breach,
Aeries Data Breach Class Action,
Aeries Data Breach Settlement,
Aeries School Information System,
Aeries School Information System Data Breach,
Aeries School Information System Security Breach,
Aeries School Information System Stolen Data,
School Data Breach,
School Data Breach Settlement,
San Dieguito Union High School,
San Dieguito Union High School Data Breach,
San Dieguito Union High School Settlement
Schulte, et al. v. Liberty Insurance Corporation et al.
Schulte, et al. v. Liberty Insurance Corporation et al.
On May 20, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Schulte, et al. v. Liberty Insurance Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00026. The settlement provided payments for all policyholders under any homeowners residential property insurance policy issued by Liberty Insurance Corporation, Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana, LM Insurance Corporation, and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, except for those excluded, who made a structural damage claim for property located in the State of Ohio during the applicable Class periods, which was a Covered Loss; and that resulted in an actual cash value payment during the class period from which Nonmaterial Depreciation was withheld, or that would have resulted in an actual cash value payment but for the withholding of Nonmaterial Depreciation causing the loss to drop below the applicable deductible.
OHS
Schumacher et al. v. Bank of Hope
Schumacher et al. v. Bank of Hope
On April 12, 2023 the Court approved a Final Approval Order in a class action Shumacher, et al. v Bank of Hope, Case No. 18STCV02066 (in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles). The settlement provided for two years of Experian IdentityWorks “1B” credit monitoring and related services (valued at $238.60 per Settlement Class Member) and reimbursement of data-breach related expenses of up to $500 per Settlement Sub-Class Member, and injunctive relief in the form of regular data security assessments, data security training for employees that handle customer information, and regular vulnerability testing of Bank of Hope’s bank networks. All settlement benefits have been issued and nothing further will be issued.
BOH
data breach, Shumacher et al. v. Bank of Hope, data exposure
Scientific Games Settlement
Scientific Games Settlement
On August 12, 2022, the Court granted final approval to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Reed v. Light & Wonder, Inc. f/k/a Scientific Games Corp. The case alleged claims under Washington state law based on the sale of virtual chips in the following social casino-style games: Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish Casino, Hot Shot Casino, Quick Hit Slots, 88 Fortunes, or Monopoly Slots. Distribution has occurred per the Settlement Agreement.
RSG
SEB Investment Management AB, et al. v. Align Technology, Inc., et al.
SEB Investment Management AB, et al. v. Align Technology, Inc., et al.
A settlement ("Settlement") has been proposed in a class action lawsuit pending in San Diego County Superior Court ("Court") titled Seegert v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., et al., Case No.37-2017-00016131-CU-MC-CTL (the "Action"). The Action alleges that Defendant P.F. Chang's utilized a Credit Card Transaction Form that contained preprinted spaces designated for filling in the telephone number and email address of the cardholder in violation of the Song Beverly Credit Card Act, Civil Code section 1747.08. Plaintiff sought civil penalties and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief. P.F. Chang's denies violating California Civil Code section 1747.08 or any wrongdoing and any liability whatsoever.
PFC
Sekula LPI Settlement
Sekula LPI Settlement
A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving lender-placed insurance (“LPI”) charged by Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. (“RCS”) and issued by Southwest Business Corporation, American Modern Insurance Group, Inc., or one of its affiliates (collectively the “Insurer Defendants”), between January 1, 2008 and August 9, 2017. The lawsuit alleges that when a borrower was required to have insurance for his or her property under a residential mortgage or home equity loan or line of credit, and evidence of acceptable coverage was not provided, RCS would place insurance in a manner such that RCS allegedly received an unauthorized benefit. Insurer Defendants expressly deny the allegations in the lawsuit. The Court has not decided who is right or that Insurer Defendants did anything wrong.
RCS
Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball Class Action Lawsuit
Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball Class Action Lawsuit
On August 26, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Senne, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Case No. 3:14-cv-00608-JCS (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California). The settlement provides for eligible current and former minor league baseball players who signed a minor league uniform player’s contract and played minor league baseball during spring training, extended spring training, or instructional leagues from either 2009 to August 26, 2022, in Florida or 2011 to August 26, 2022 in Arizona, or played in the California League for at least seven days from 2010 to August 26, 2022. The Court entered its Final Judgment of the Settlement on March 31, 2023. The net settlement fund was distributed to eligible Class Members in accordance with the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release.
MLB
SFX Entertainment Securities Litigation
SFX Entertainment Securities Litigation
On January 4, 2021, the court ordered the Order Directing Distribution of Class Settlement Fund. The Settlement Fund, before deductions of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, in the amount of $6,750,000, was established for the benefit of eligible Class Members who purchased or acquired SFX Entertainment, Inc. common stock during the period between February 25, 2015 and November 17, 2015.
sfx
Shabani Stewart, et al. v. Early Warning Services, LLC
Shabani Stewart, et al. v. Early Warning Services, LLC
On February 21, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, titled Stewart, et al. v. Early Warning Services, LLC (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey). Individuals are part of the (b)(2) settlement class if they requested a copy of their file disclosure from EWS on or after March 7, 2016 and on or before February 21, 2020 and received a “Summary File Disclosure” from EWS. Class members are part of the (b)(3) settlement if they requested a copy of their file disclosure from the defendant between March 7, 2016 and February 21, 2020 and, while their EWS file may have contained a Fraud Record, the disclosure provided by EWS did not use the word "fraud". The Court approved the settlement on June 24, 2020. Settlement checks were distributed to eligible (b)(3) class members, (b)(2) class members received Settlement benefits in the form of injunctive relief.
SEW
Shah et al. v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al.
Shah et al. v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al.
The court ordered the Distribution on December 14, 2020, for the Zimmer Biomet Holdings Securities Litigation. The case distributed to all processed claims of eligible claimants that that fit the eligible Settlement definition.
ZIM
Shelby GT350 Mustang Litigation
Shelby GT350 Mustang Litigation
On March 20, 2024 a jury rendered a verdict in favor of Ford in the class action Tershakovec, et al., v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 17-cv-21087-FAM (In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida).
FSH
Shelby Mustang Litigigation, 2016 Shelby GT350, Mustang Base Package, Mustang Technology Package, Powertrain, Overheating, Ford
SVW
Mike Sherrod, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Volkswagen, Door Wiring Harness, Atlas, Altlas Cross Sport, Sherrod v. Volkswagen Group of America Settlement, 2019-2023 Volkswagen Atlas, 2019-2023 Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport, Recall 97 GF
Shuman v. SquareTrade, Inc.
Shuman v. SquareTrade, Inc.
On March 1, 2023, the court granted final approval to a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Michael Shuman, et al. v Squaretrade Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-02725-JCS (District Court for the Northern District of California). The settlement provides for payments to qualified Class Members to supplement the amount(s) they previously received as reimbursement after making a claim under a SquareTrade Protection Plan.
The lawsuit alleges that SquareTrade underpaid two groups of consumers who purchased SquareTrade Protection Plans, made claims under those Plans, and received a reimbursement from SquareTrade under those Plans. For the first group, known as the Fast Cash Subclass, the lawsuit alleges that after some customers submitted claims under their Protection Plans, SquareTrade sent them a Fast Cash payment equal to its estimate of the replacement cost of the covered item and that this payment was less than it should have been. SquareTrade denies this. For the second group, known as the SKU-cap Subclass, the lawsuit alleges that SquareTrade inadvertently applied a “cap” to the reimbursement amount it paid to a small number of customers. The Plaintiffs and Defendant agree that this cap should not have been applied.
Payment has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement. If you have any questions, please reach out to the Settlement Administrator by calling toll-free 1-888-964-1110.
On January 6, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Skeen v. BMW NA, No. 2:13-cv-1531 (D.N.J.), involving an alleged Timing Chain Tensioner defect. Final approval of the settlement was granted on July 26, 2016, establishing a $6,000,000 settlement fund. All claims have been processed and all eligible class members have been paid.
BMW
SME Foreign Streaming Settlement
SME Foreign Streaming Settlement
On September 16, 2020, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, The Rick Nelson Company, LLC v. Sony Music Entertainment, Case No. 1:18-cv-08791-LLS (S.D.N.Y.), alleging that the Defendant failed to properly calculate royalties on foreign streams of certain sound recordings. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $12.7 million as well as additional prospective relief. Final approval was granted on May 25, 2021, and a Class Distribution Order was entered on March 21, 2022.
sme
Smith v KFORCE Inc
Smith v KFORCE Inc
On December 9, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement, Maurcus Smith, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KFORCE INC., Case No. 8-19-CV-02068-CEH-CPT (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida). Final approval was granted on June 28, 2021. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible Class Members.
KFR
KFORCE, Fair Credit Reporting Act, FCRA, Maurcus Smith
In the lawsuit, Representative Plaintiffs alleged multiple violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) for failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide meal periods, failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to timely pay wages upon separation of employment, among other items.
SMG
Smith v. Seko Worldwide, LLC
Smith v. Seko Worldwide, LLC
On October 26, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Smith v. Seko Worldwide, LLC, Case No. 2021CH01191 (Ill. Cir. Cook County). This lawsuit alleged that Seko Worldwide, LLC violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) by requiring its current and/or former employees to submit their biometrics for timekeeping purposes during the class period without first providing the requisite disclosures or obtaining the requisite consent. Final Approval was granted February 9, 2022, establishing a Settlement Fund of $51,000.00 to be paid to all Class Members who did not choose to submit a timely and valid Request for Exclusion. Payments were issued on or about April 1, 2022.
SEK
Snap Fitness CEF Settlement
Snap Fitness CEF Settlement
On March 20, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Thomas Dwyer v. Snap Fitness, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-00455 (United States District Court Southern District of Ohio, Western Division). The settlement provides for persons whopaid a CEF under a Snap Fitness membership agreement that did not mention payment of the CEF, and/or had been a party to a pre-November 2017 Snap Fitness prepaid membership agreement in the state of Ohio and either canceled their membership between May 25, 2015 and March 20, 2019 while operating under that agreement, or remained a current Snap Fitness member under that agreement. The case website will be updated once the Court approves the settlement and as the administration progresses. Final approval was granted on September 18, 2019. All eligible class members have been paid.
There is a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota which may affect you. The Plaintiffs (former and potential future tenants) in this lawsuit allege that the Defendants--the owners and managers of the apartment complex formerly known as Crossroads at Penn and currently known as Concierge Apartments ("Crossroads/Concierge"), headquartered at 7620 Penn Ave South, Richfield, MN 55423, and including 7600, 7610, 7700, 7710 and 7720 Penn Ave--discriminated on the basis of race, disability, familial status, and national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3604(a), and that former and potential residents were injured as a result.
MSP
Solano-Rodriguez v. Amazon Studios, LLC
Solano-Rodriguez v. Amazon Studios, LLC
On December 11, 2017, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in several lawsuits that were filed by current and former Parking Production Assistants ("PPAs") asserting that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law by not paying the PPAs correctly for all of the hours, including overtime hours, that they worked. Final approval was granted on May 15, 2018, and Settlement Checks were distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
AMZ
Sonner v. Schwabe North America, Inc.
Sonner v. Schwabe North America, Inc.
On October 1, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Sonner v. Schwabe North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-01358-VAP-SP (C.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff alleged that Schwabe North America, Inc. and Nature’s Way Products, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) engaged in false advertising by claiming Ginkgold and Ginkgold Max provide cognitive health benefits that they do not actually provide. Final Approval was granted January 25, 2021, establishing the Settlement Fund of $3,375,000.00 to be paid to all Class Members who submitted a timely and valid Claim Form. Payments were issued on or about April 2, 2021.
SNA
GOL
Spectrum Brands Securities Litigation
Spectrum Brands Securities Litigation
On November 17th, 2021, preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit In Re Spectrum Brands Securities Litigation, Case No.19-cv-347-JDP (W.D. Wis.). The settlement provided for $32,000,000. The Settlement was approved by the Court on November 18, 2022. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
spc
Speed v. JMA Settlement
Speed v. JMA Settlement
On April 12, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Speed v. JMA Energy Company, L.L.C., Case No. CJ-2016-59 (District Court of Hughes County, Oklahoma). The settlement provides for the Defendant to pay $800,000.00 in cash (“Gross Settlement Fund”), less Class Counsel’s Fees and Expenses, and other costs or deduction approved by the Court (“Net Settlement Fund”), to be distributed to the Settlement Class Participants pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Final approval was granted on July 12, 2019. All claims have been processed and all eligible class members have been paid.
JMA
Spencer v. City of Mount Vernon
Spencer v. City of Mount Vernon
On August 14, 2023 the Court entered a Final Order and Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement in the class action Spencer v. City of Mount Vernon, Case No. 22-2-00461-29 (In the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of Skagit. Defendants agreed to pay a total of $994,932.50 (“Gross Settlement Amount”) to settle this Action, inclusive of attorney’s fees, class representative awards, administration costs and monetary awards to all Participating Settlement Class Members. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
SMV
Stanley v. Capri Training Center, Inc.
Stanley v. Capri Training Center, Inc.
On April 26, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Stanley v. Capri Training Center, Case No. EXS-L-1182-16 (Sup. Ct. of New Jersey, Essex County). The settlement provided for $350,000 in service vouchers, redeemable for student-provided services at a Capri Institute Beauty School Clinic. Final approval was granted on October 2, 2019. All claims have been processed, and benefits have been distributed to eligible class members.
The lawsuit alleges that Stein Mart misclassified ASMs as “exempt” employees, instead of properly classifying them as employees who are entitled to the protections of the FLSA, and failed to pay them overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiffs claim that the duties they primarily performed, such as greeting and assisting customers; cashiering; sales; returns; stocking; inventory; cleaning; folding, tagging and hanging clothes; and operational/clerical duties, entitled them to receive overtime compensation like other, hourly Stein Mart employees who similarly performed such duties.
On December 1, 2021, the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging that the Kaiser-related Entities discriminated against African American employees. The settlement provided for a Gross Settlement Fund in the amount of $11,504,759.00. Final approval was granted on March 10, 2022, and the Gross Settlement Fund was distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
SKP
Black, African-American, Former Employees, Kaiser Foundation, Hospitals, The Permanente Medical Group, Inc, Southern California Permanente Medical Group
Stillman v. Clermont York Associates LLC
Stillman v. Clermont York Associates LLC
On June 30, 2017, the Court granted final approval of the Settlement in a class action lawsuit, Stillman v. Clermont York Associates LLC, 603557/09E (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.). The Settlement provided for $1,200,000 to be divided into a Former Tenants Pool and a Current Tenants Pool and distributed to Class Members who submitted valid claims. Settlement benefits were sent to all eligible Class Members in 2018.
This website describes the Proposed Settlement of a class action lawsuit concerning alleged violation of law by Defendants State of Montana, Department of Corrections, and Treasure State Correctional Training Center. The named Plaintiff alleges that, while he was employed by the Defendants, he worked in excess of 40 hours per week, but was not compensated for the overtime wages which were due to him for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The named Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in the same violation of Montana law generally by not compensating other employees for the overtime wages due to them. The named Plaintiff alleges that this conduct is a violation of the Defendants' personnel manuals and policies, of §39-3-204, M.C.A. and of §39-3-405, M.C.A.
STA
Strickland LPI Settlement
Strickland LPI Settlement
A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving lender-placed insurance (“LPI”) charged by Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, Carrington Mortgage Holdings LLC, or Carrington Holding Company LLC (collectively “Carrington”) and issued by American Modern Insurance Group, Inc. or one of its affiliates (together, “AMIG Defendants”), and/or Southwest Business Corporation, between December 1, 2012 and August 9, 2017. The lawsuit alleges that when a borrower was required to have insurance for his or her property under a residential mortgage or home equity loan or line of credit, and evidence of acceptable coverage was not provided, Carrington would place insurance in a manner such that Carrington allegedly received an unauthorized benefit. Defendants expressly deny the allegations in the lawsuit. The Court has not decided who is right or that Defendants did anything wrong.
CTN
Strohm, et al. v. Missouri-American Water Co.
Strohm, et al. v. Missouri-American Water Co.
On May 13, 2022 the Court entered Final Approval of Settlement in a class action Jason Strohm, et al. v. Missouri-American Water Company, Case No. 16AE-CV01252 (In the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri). The settlement provided for monetary awards for eligible and participating Class Members. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
MAW
missouri american water company, mawc
Stryker Modular Hip Settlement
Stryker Modular Hip Settlement
JND’s CEO Jennifer Keough and her team, including JND Vice President Gretchen Eoff, were designated as the escrow agent and claims processor in the $1 billion settlement in In re Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Hip Implant Products Liab. Litig., No. 13-2441 (MDL) (D. Minn.). The settlement was structured to compensate eligible U.S. Patients who had surgery to replace their Rejuvenate Modular-Neck and/or ABG II Modular-Neck hip stems prior to November 3, 2014. As the claims processor, Ms. Keough and her team designed internal procedures to ensure the accurate review of all medical documentation received; designed an interactive website which included online claim filing; and established a toll-free number to allow class members to receive information about the settlement 24 hours a day. Additionally, she oversaw the creation of a deficiency process to ensure claimants were notified of their deficient submission and provided an opportunity to cure. The program also included an auditing procedure designed to detect fraudulent claims and a process for distributing initial and supplemental payments. Approximately 95% of the registered eligible patients enrolled in the settlement program.
SMH
Stuart, et al. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company
Stuart, et al. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company
On January 3, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Stuart, et al., v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Case No. 14-cv-04001 (W.D. Ark.). The settlement provided benefits for persons and entities that received “actual cash value” payments, directly or indirectly, from State Farm for loss or damage to a dwelling or other structure located in the State of Arkansas, such payments arising from events that occurred between May 1, 2010 and December 6, 2013, where the cost of labor was depreciated. Final approval was granted on June 2, 2020. All eligible class members have been paid.
On July 8, 2021, the Court entered an Order and Judgment in a class action, Khona, et al., v. Subaru of America, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-09323-RMB-AMD (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey). The settlement provided for an extended warranty for the Original Windshields in the Settlement Class Vehicles and possible reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses paid for an Original Windshield replacement to an authorized Subaru retailer, an authorized Subaru repair facility, or a third-party aftermarket repair provider. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
sws
Sunil Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc., et al
Sunil Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc., et al
On January 9, 2019, The Court approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Sunil Sudunagunta v. Nantwest, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-1947-MWF (JEMx). The settlement provided for $12,000,000.00. Final approval was granted on May 13, 2019. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
nki
Suntrust ERISA Settlement
Suntrust ERISA Settlement
On March 12, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, In Re SunTrust Banks, Inc., ERISA Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-03384-RWS (N.D. Ga.) The settlement provided for a Settlement Amount of $4,750,000.00. Final Approval was granted on June 28, 2018, and the Settlement Amount was distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
SEL
Swafford v. Ovintiv Exploration, Inc.
Swafford v. Ovintiv Exploration, Inc.
On August 3, 2021, preliminary approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Mary Lansden Swafford v. Ovintiv Exploration Inc., et al. Case No. 6:21-cv-00210-SPS (The United States District Court for Eastern District of Oklahoma), for Defendants’ alleged failure to properly pay royalty on gas and its constituents. The settlement provided for cash benefits of $19,500,000.00. Final approval was granted on November 3, 2021. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
OVI
royalties, gas, gas constituents, Oklahoma, Oil-and-gas wells, oil and gas
On January 19, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit, Szafarz v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. SUCV2016-2094-BLS2 (Mass. Super. Suffolk County). The Plaintiff alleged that UPS failed to pay hourly employees at least three hours of “reporting pay” when the employees reported to work as scheduled but were not provided with their expected hours of work. Final Approval was granted May 8, 2018, establishing the Settlement Fund of $995,000.00 to be paid to Class Members. Payments were issued on or about June 19, 2018.
SZA
T-Mobile Remediation Program
T-Mobile Remediation Program
TMO
Taafua v. Quantum Global Technologies
Taafua v. Quantum Global Technologies
On February 16, 2021, final approval was granted to a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Taafua v. Quantum Global Technologies, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-06602-VKD (N.D. Cal. (San Jose)), brought against the Defendant under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The settlement provided for cash benefits of $174,980.00. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
On May 8, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Christie Tarsa and Sarah Trattner v. MarketSource, Inc. and American Honda Motor Company, Inc. The settlement provides for individuals employed by MarketSource and who work or worked under the job titles of Honda Zone Recall Specialist, Product Event Specialist, Recall Coordinator, or any other title used to describe the same position. Final approval was granted on August 12, 2020 and the Gross Settlement Fund has been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
tmi
Tatarsky v. Blue Ribbon Cooking
Tatarsky v. Blue Ribbon Cooking
Former employees brought claims against Blue Ribbon, alleging a failure to provide compliant meal periods and rest breaks under Washington law.
BRC
Taxi Text Settlement
Taxi Text Settlement
On March 1, 2017, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Gragg v. Orange Cab Company, Inc., Case No. C12-0576RSL (W.D. Wash.) The settlement provided $12 Orange Cab taxi ride vouchers and, for class members submitting a valid Claim Form, a cash payment. Final approval was granted on June 27, 2017, and settlement benefits were distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
OCC
Taylor-Sheridan Fund 1 Settlement
Taylor-Sheridan Fund 1 Settlement
On July 14, 2020, the Court granted final approval to a settlement in In re: Sheridan Holding Company I, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-31884 (DRJ) (Bankr. S.D. Tex.). The settlement provided for cash benefits of $5,094,000.00. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
SHE
TCF Bank Settlement
TCF Bank Settlement
On July 20, 2018, TCF Bank, the CFPB and the OCC entered into a settlement agreement that requires TCF Bank to pay $25 million in restitution to a subset of account holders from 2010-2013 where there is the possibility that some customers may not have fully understood their options for participating in the service and paid overdraft fees, even though TCF provided customers with written disclosures about the overdraft service that fully complied with the law and regulations. The settlement resolves Federal regulators concerns related to TCF’s overdraft opt-in processes and practices. Refund checks were mailed to customers per the terms of the settlement agreement.
The court ordered the Distribution on January 21, 2020, for the TechnipFMC Securities Litigation in the Order for Distribution of Class Action Settlement Funds. The case distributed to all processed claims of eligible claimants that that fit the eligible Settlement definition.
TEC
TerraForm Power Securities Litigation
TerraForm Power Securities Litigation
On September 14, 2017, the Court approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Chamblee, et al. v. TerraForm Power, Inc., et al., 1:16-cv-08039-PKC (S.D.N.Y). The settlement provided for $14,750,000.00. Final approval was granted on January 31, 2018. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
TER
Terrell FCRA Settlement
Terrell FCRA Settlement
The Plaintiff alleges that Costco violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") when it obtained background reports on job applicants by using a disclosure form that allegedly was not a stand-alone form as required by the FCRA. The Plaintiff alleges that the use of an allegedly non-compliant disclosure form (the "Challenged Disclosure Form") caused him harm and violated the law. Costco disputes the Plaintiff's claim and denies all liability to Plaintiff and the Class, and has raised a number of defenses to the claims asserted. Costco maintains that the Challenged Disclosure Form fully complied with the FCRA and did not harm anyone. The Parties are settling the Litigation to avoid further risk and expense. No court has found Costco to have violated the law in any way. No court has found that the Plaintiff or the Class could recover any certain amount in this Litigation. Although the Court has authorized notice to be given of the proposed Settlement, this Notice does not express the opinion of the Court on the merits of the claims or defenses asserted by either side in the Litigation.
CTC
Teva ERISA Settlement
Teva ERISA Settlement
On December 7, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Jerry Pinnell, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-cv-05738 (E.D. Pa.). The settlement provided payments for participants and beneficiaries of the Teva Pharmaceuticals Retirement Savings Plan who maintained a balance of any amount at any point during the period from December 6, 2013 through June 28, 2019. Final approval was granted on May 3, 2021. All eligible class members have been paid.
Plaintiff’s First Amended Class Action Complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1985 (Civ. Code, § 51.6, subd. (b)), the Unruh Act (Civ. Code, § 51.5, subd. (a)), and committed an unfair business practice (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200, et. seq.) by charging paying male customers more than females to attend its parties at the venue known as “Unici Casa” in Culver City, California. Plaintiff alleges that the practice has been ongoing since April 13, 2015. Defendant has denied and continues to deny any wrongdoing in this action and believes that Plaintiff’s claims are without merit. Defendant maintains that it did not discriminate against male paying customers. The court has not yet ruled on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims or Defendant’s defenses. The court granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification on April 24, 2018, determined that this action may be maintained as a class action, and appointed Plaintiff as class representative.
TIF
Tither-Kaplan & Gaal et al. v. Studio 4 et al.
Tither-Kaplan & Gaal et al. v. Studio 4 et al.
On February 24, 2023 the Court entered a Corrected Order and Judgement Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, in the class action Tither-Kaplan & Gaal, et al. v. Studio 4, et al., Case No. 19STCV35156 (In the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles). Defendants agreed to pay a total of $2,235,000 (“Gross Settlement Amount”) to settle this Action, inclusive of attorney’s fees, class representative awards, administration costs, and monetary awards to Participating Class Members. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
TKJ
TJX Settlement
TJX Settlement
The lawsuit alleges that TJX engaged in false or misleading price comparison advertising through the Compare At prices on TJX price tags in its California stores between July 17, 2011, and December 6, 2017 in violation of various California laws that prohibit false advertising and unfair competition. TJX denies: (1) that it used false or misleading price comparison advertising; (2) that it has done anything wrong; and (3) that the Plaintiffs or consumers have been harmed in any way. The Court has not decided who is right.
TJX
Tkachyk v. Travelers Insurance Settlement
Tkachyk v. Travelers Insurance Settlement
On May 17, 2017, the Court granted final approval of the Settlement in a class action lawsuit, Tkachyk v. Travelers Home & Marine Insurance Company, et al., 9:16-cv-28-DLC (D. Mont.). The Settlement provided for a Settlement Fund in the amount of $1,260,476.00, which amount included the following allocations: $945,357.30 for subrogation recovered by Travelers and $315,119.10 for the class recovery of attorneys’ fees, plus costs and litigation expenses. Settlement benefits were sent to all eligible Settlement Class Members.
NSM
Veripro Solutions, mortgage, home equity, credit, foreclosure, short sale
Tolliver v. Avvo Settlement
Tolliver v. Avvo Settlement
Former employees of Avvo brought claims against the company for allegedly misclassifying them as exempt, failing to pay overtime wages in violation of RCW 49.46.130, and willfully withholding wages owed in violation of RCW 49.52.070. Avvo denies the allegations and denies any wrongdoing. The parties have reached a Class Action Settlement.
cpc
lawsuit-toms, toms settlement, toms of maine settlement, tom's of maine settlement, Tom’s of Maine, Tom’s Products, Tom’s of Maine deodorant and toothpaste, deodorant and toothpaste, Colgate-Palmolive Co, Tom’s of Maine Inc, de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co, JND, tom’s of maine lawsuit, Bursor & Fisher, Tom’s of Maine Litigation
Torres v. Melo Dairy et al.
Torres v. Melo Dairy et al.
On May 17, 2021 the Court entered an Order and Judgment in a class action Torres v. Melo Dairy, et al, Case No. BCV-19-101450 (Superior Court of the State of California County of Kern). The settlement provided for awards, to be paid to all approved Class Members whom were paid by Melo Dairy any time between May 24, 2015 and February 3, 2021 who were the subject to a time rounding system in calculation of their wages. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
Final Approval of the Settlement was granted on May 24, 2018. JND has completed its review and processing of all claims. All eligible class members have received their benefit.
TTJ
Townsend v. G2 Secure Staff
Townsend v. G2 Secure Staff
On February 3, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Townsend v. G2 Secure Staff, Case No. 18STCV04429 (Cal. Super. Los Angeles). The settlement provided for $759,000. Final approval was granted on July 7, 2020, and Settlement benefits have been distributed to all eligible class members in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
g2s
Trepte v. Bionaire, Inc.
Trepte v. Bionaire, Inc.
On November 5, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Trepte v. Bionaire, Inc. The Settlement Class includes all persons within the State of California who purchased a new Bionaire BCH9208 Ceramic Tower Heater for their own use and not for resale at any time since March 20, 2010. Final approval was granted on August 24, 2020. All claims have been processed, and all eligible Class Members have been mailed settlement benefits.
bnr
heater
Truss v. Four Seasons Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.
Truss v. Four Seasons Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.
On February 23, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Kevin Truss v. Four Seasons Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., Case No. 2019-CH-09633 (Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois). Final approval was granted on July 12, 2021, establishing a Settlement Fund of $700,275.00. Benefits have been distributed to all eligible class members in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
September 22, 2021, the Court granted final approval to a settlement in Debbie Tyler v. Param Hotel Corp.; Mahesh Enterprises, Inc.; and G&P Laxmi, Inc., Case No. 19CV53295 (Or. Cir. Multnomah.) The settlement provided for cash benefits of more than $85,000. The settlement proceeds have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
A settlement has been approved in a class action lawsuit against General Information Solutions LLC (the “Defendant”) on behalf of consumers who on or after January 19, 2014 but on or before December 31, 2016 were the subject of a background check that contained a record other than a conviction of a crime with a disposition date more than seven years before the date of the report.
TYG
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Walmart, Inc.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Walmart, Inc.
On September 9, 2020, the Consent Decree in an action, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Walmart, Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-00163-KKC (U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Kentucky) became effective. The Consent Decree provides settlement fund to be paid to any individual deemed to be eligible by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) who returns a timely release and W-9 to JND, who is serving as the settlement administrator in this matter. You may review the EEOC’s September 10, 2020 Press Release here:
WLT
EEOC
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation
On December 11, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, In re Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-CV-01620 (VM). The settlement provided for $15,000,000. Final approval was granted on March 27, 2020. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
UBI
Udeen v. Subaru of America
Udeen v. Subaru of America
On October 4th, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Udeen, et al. v. Subaru of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-17334-RBK-JS. The settlement provided payments for individuals who currently or previously owned or leased a 2017 Impreza, 2018 Impreza, 2018 Forester, 2018 Outback, 2018 Legacy, 2018 Crosstrek or a 2018 BRZ vehicles equipped with the Generation 3.0 head unit manufactured by Harman International Industries, Inc. where the vehicle was purchased in the continental United States. Final approval was granted on June 30th, 2020. All eligible class members have been paid.
On September 22, 2017, the Court approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, In re Unilife Corporation Securities Litigation, 1:16-cv-03976-RA (S.D.N.Y). The settlement provided for $4,400,000.00. Final approval was granted on January 25, 2018. All claims have been processed and settlement benefits have been sent to all eligible class members.
UNL
United States of America v. Baltimore County, Maryland
United States of America v. Baltimore County, Maryland
On June 17, 2022 the Court entered a Final Approval Order in a civil action United States of America v. Baltimore County, Maryland, Civil Action No. CCB-19-2465 (In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland). The United States and Baltimore County voluntarily agreed to the Settlement Agreement. As part of the Settlement Agreement, the County agreed to provide money and priority hire consideration to individuals who would have otherwise been eligible for employment as an entry-level police officer or police cadet if the County did not use the written examinations the United States challenges. Baltimore County also agreed to stop using the challenged written exams and to use an exam that meets the required legal standards. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
bpd
United States v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
United States v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
Greyhound Lines has entered into a Consent Decree with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to resolve a lawsuit brought by the DOJ under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This resolution addresses claims under the ADA, including claims that Greyhound failed to provide accessible transportation and transportation-related services to people with disabilities. Greyhound denies these allegations.
GRY
University of Michigan Student Class Settlement
University of Michigan Student Class Settlement
On March 29, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit Graham v. University of Michigan, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-11168-VAR-EAS (E.D. Mich.). Defendants agreed to implement additional operating and oversight procedures for identification, prevention, and reporting of improper sexual conduct at the University of Michigan, including to establish a Coordinated Community Response Team (“CCRT”), which will have the authority and the duty to assess, plan, monitor, and evaluate campus prevention and response efforts at the University of Michigan, and make official recommendations regarding the University’s sexual misconduct prevention and response efforts. The CCRT’s Co-Chairs will regularly communicate regarding policy, procedure, and practice changes to the President of the University and meet with the President to discuss the CCRT’s ongoing efforts and will regularly provide public updates online concerning what it is doing, what it has found, and its recommendations. This agreement will continue for five years from the date of Court approval. Final approval was granted on August 3, 2022.
MIC
University of Michigan, Michigan, U Michigan, Regents of the University of Michigan, UM, University of Michigan sexual misconduct class action, University of Michigan sexual misconduct settlement, University of Michigan student class action, University of Michigan student settlement, University of Michigan policy change, University of Michigan procedure change, Regents of the University of Michigan sexual misconduct class action, Regents of the University of Michigan sexual misconduct settlement, Regents of the University of Michigan student class action, Regents of the University of Michigan student settlement, Michigan sexual misconduct class action, Michigan sexual misconduct settlement, Michigan student class action, U Michigan sexual misconduct class action, U Michigan sexual misconduct settlement, U Michigan sexual misconduct lawsuit
University of New Haven Settlement
University of New Haven Settlement
On June 12, 2023, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Wnorowski v. University of New Haven, Case No. 3:20-cv-1589. The Settlement provided payments to all individuals who were a UNH student enrolled in a UNH course as of March 24, 2020 and were not a non-matriculated high school student at that time and did not opt out. Final approval was granted on October 11, 2023. All eligible class members have been paid.
On March 16, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Valerie Lewis v. Trident Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 20-CH-000388 (Ill. Cir. Kane.) The settlement provided for cash benefits of $473,850. Final approval was granted on July 8, 2022, and the Settlement benefits have been distributed to all eligible class members in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
trd
Van Jacobs v. New World Van Lines
Van Jacobs v. New World Van Lines
On June 7, 2021, the Court approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Van Jacobs v. New World Van Lines, INC., Case No. 2019-CH-02619 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division). The settlement provides for individuals who had their finger scan data, hand scan and/or any other biometric identifier and/or information collected, captured, received, stored or otherwise obtained, retained, disseminated, or disclosed by Defendant and/or its affiliates (New World. Ltd., New World Van Lines of Chicago, Inc., New World International Ltd., New World Transportation Systems, Corp.) in violation of BIPA as alleged in the Complaint at any time from February 27, 2014 to February 4, 2021. All checks in this matter have been disbursed and have since been voided.
On July 8, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Rosalyn Vasquez v. Rainier Hospitality LLC, Case No. 19-2-14813-6 SEA (King County Superior Court). The settlement provides for persons who, at any time from December 14, 2015, through and including December 31, 2018, were employed by Rainier Hospitality LLC as an hourly-paid employee at the Seattle Center Holiday Inn.. The case website will be updated once the Court approves the settlement and as the administration progresses. Final approval was granted on October 11, 2019. All claims have been processed and all eligible class members have been paid.
RHL
Vassalle v. Midland Funding LLC
Vassalle v. Midland Funding LLC
On November 27, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit, Vassalle, et al., v. Midland Funding, LLC, et. al., Case No. 3:11-cv-00096 (N.D. Ohio). The settlement provided for cash benefits of $5.2 million. The settlement funds were distributed in accordance with the terms of the Settlement.
VSL
Vasser v. Mapco Express Inc.
Vasser v. Mapco Express Inc.
A lawsuit was filed on June 4, 2020, and is known as Vasser, et al. v. Mapco Express, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00665, and is pending before the Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr, United States Chief District Judge in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. Pursuant to the Court Order, Notices and “Consent to Join” the Collective Action forms were sent to potentially eligible persons in September 2021. All Consent to Join forms were due postmarked, emailed or faxed by December, 6 2021 to maintain eligibility to remain in the Collective Action. If you joined this Collective Action, you will be contacted with more information on the Action as it becomes available.
vme
Verizon Wireless FTC Litigation
Verizon Wireless FTC Litigation
crv
Vermont Gas Antitrust Settlement
Vermont Gas Antitrust Settlement
On June 26, 2020, the Court granted final approval to a settlement in Kent, et al. v. R.L. Vallee, Inc., et al., Case No. 617-6-15 Cncv (Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Unit). The settlement provided for $1,500,000, and settlement proceeds were distributed in accordance with the terms of the settlement.