CLASS ACTION ADMINISTRATION CASES

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.

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.

A settlement (the “Settlement”) has been approved by the federal court in a class action lawsuit alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) in connection with the Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan and the Retirement and Savings Plan of Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (collectively, the “Plans”). This Settlement will provide for a payment of $2,750,000.00 to the Settlement Fund.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On December 21, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Boyle v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Case No. 2020-L-00386 (Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois). The settlement was brought on behalf of all persons who used the Time-Keeping System while working for Defendant within the State of Illinois between March 5, 2014 and December 21, 2020 who have not signed a release in relation to such Time-Keeping System.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

The complaints allege, inter alia, that several defendants entered into sham transactions that ultimately transferred a controlling interest in USAE to their family, friends and affiliates.  Plaintiffs’ complaints include causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, vicarious liability, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and civil conspiracy. 

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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 persons whose 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.

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 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.

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.

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 lawsuit claims that Defendants breached the warranty of habitability and the covenant of quiet enjoyment due to problems with its heat and hot water systems at Walden Park between 2012 and 2014.  Equity denies any wrongdoing.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

The lawsuit alleges that United States Storage of California failed to properly provide adequate meal and rest periods, timely pay wages during and at the termination of employment, provided wage statements which did not comply with California law, did not keep requisite payroll records, and violated other California wage and hour laws.

View Judgment

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.

On December 31, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Hill v. Valli Produce of Evanston, Case No. 2019CH13196 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division). The settlement provides for persons who were required to provide their finger scan for timekeeping purposes between November 14, 2014 to December 31, 2020 in the State of Illinois by Valli Produce of Evanston, Inc. without first signing a written release.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 for all 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.

On October 1, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Linderman v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. BC650785 (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California). The settlement provides for a pro rata Fee Adjustment Credit of approximately $12.00 per Class Member toward the Annual Renewal Fee for an Alarm System permit issued for the 2021 calendar year. Additionally, prospective relief may be available 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 $5.00 less than the existing Alarm Permit Fee charged by the City for an Alarm System permit. Final approval was granted on February 26, 2020.

On July 7, 2016, and again on September 2, 2016, Wolford America, Inc. (“Wolford”) sent the Text Message(s) to the Plaintiff and many other recipients. Plaintiff contends that the Text Message(s) did not comply with and violated the federal statute, known as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) 47 USC § 227. Plaintiff claims, and Wolford denies, that the Text Message(s) failed to include proper description of the sender of the text and failed to include a proper opt-out mechanism. Wolford denies any wrongdoing, and no court or other judicial entity has made any judgment or other determination of any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, to avoid the further costs of litigation, Wolford has agreed to settle.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click here to view the Notice of Pendency

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

This is a class action lawsuit in the matter of 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 class consists of current and former Les Schwab Tire Store employees in Oregon who were not paid for one or more meal periods shorter than 30 minutes since June 1, 2011. If the Class Representatives win or settle their claims, Class Members will be notified if they are entitled to receive money compensation. The amount of money depends on several factors and cannot be determined at this time. If the Class Representatives lose, Class Members will not get any money. There is no money available now.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The lawsuit involves lender-placed insurance (“LPI”), also known as “creditor-placed” or “forced-placed” insurance. A bank or mortgage servicer may arrange for the placement of LPI on a property when it is believed that the borrower’s insurance is insufficient, when the borrower’s policy has lapsed, or the borrower has not provided sufficient proof of insurance coverage on the property.

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 2^nd 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 who paid 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.

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.

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.

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.

A class action has been approved by the Supreme Court of the State of New York that alleges that approximately 61 apartments (“Units”) at The Clermont York, 445 East 80th Street, New York, New York, were improperly deregulated under the Rent Stabilization Law.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Former employees brought claims against Blue Ribbon, alleging a failure to provide compliant meal periods and rest breaks under Washington law. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The lawsuit was filed by Sara Tkachyk on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, concerning alleged violation of Montana law by defendants Travelers Home & Marine Insurance Company, The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company, Northland Casualty Company, Northland Insurance Company, Phoenix Insurance Company, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, The Travelers Indemnity Company, Travelers Indemnity Company of America, The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, individually and on behalf of all affiliated entities (collectively, “Travelers,” as defined in the Settlement Agreement).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On February 4, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed 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.

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.

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.

On November 20, 2020, the Court entered a Preliminary Approval Order in a case, Angel Villafan v. Broadspectrum Downstream Services, Inc. Case No. 3:18-cv-06741-LB (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California). The settlement provides for a fund of $5,000,000.00, to be paid to individuals who (1) previously completed an Opt-In Consent Form to join this case; or (2) did not previously join this case but the records of Broadspectrum Downstream Services, Inc. dba Broadspectrum Americas, Inc., dba Transfield Services, formerly Timec Company, Inc. (“Broadspectrum”) and/or T.R.S.C., Inc. (“TRSC”) (collectively, “Defendants”) show performed work for Defendants in the State of California sometime between November 6, 2014 and November 20, 2020.

On April 10, 2019, the Court granted preliminary approval to two class action lawsuits brought against EQT Production Company ("EQT"), alleging that EQT did not properly calculate royalties.  The cases are Huffman v. EQT Production Company, Case No. 10-cv-00041 (W.D. Va.) and Gilbert v. EQT Production Company, Case No. 10-cv-00037 (W.D. Va.)  Final approval was granted in both cases on July 26, 2019, and the settlement benefits have been distributed in accordance with the terms of the respective settlements.

JND Co-Founder Neil Zola oversaw all notice and settlement administration efforts in connection with the In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, No. CV-96-5238 (E.D.N.Y.). This case was brought by Walmart and other large retailers against Visa and MasterCard, claiming they were victims of an illegal tying arrangement in which defendants forced them to accept debit cards at high rates as the price of accepting credit cards. The case settled, on the eve of trial, for $3.05 billion. In connection with the settlement, Mr. Zola oversaw three separate mailings to a class of more than 8 million and the processing of 800,000 claims. The administration required the uploading and processing of complex data from 85 separate acquiring banks as part of some 200 million credit card transactions. Claim forms were pre-populated with this data and sent to claimants making security and privacy issues paramount here. Mr. Zola ran this administration from inception at the class certification stage through completion once 2.1 million checks had been distributed in several waves. He worked hand in hand with plaintiffs’ counsel advising on various protocols and drafting the plan of allocation that was ultimately submitted to the Court.

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit, Wahl v. Yahoo! Inc., d/b/a Rivals.com. The Plaintiff in this action asserts claims for alleged violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law on behalf of a purported class of California consumers based on alleged violations of California’s Automatic Renewal Law. Class members are California customers who were charged on a recurring basis by Rivals.com for a subscription entered into between March 31, 2013 and the present.

In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs claimed that AT&T misclassified Designers and Deliverers as exempt from the overtime pay requirements of federal and California state law, and consequently failed to pay them overtime pay.

On October 5, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Fosbrink v. Area Wide Protective, Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-1154-T-30CPT, United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. The settlement provides for AWP Inc. employees and job applicants in the United States who were the subject of a consumer report. Final approval was granted on January 22, 2019. All eligible class members have been paid.

On September 5, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit, Williams & Murphy v. SMG, (Case No. 17-2-29494-2 SEA). The settlement provides for all current and former hourly paid employees of SMG who have worked at McCaw Hall between November 13, 2014 and July 31, 2018 or at ShoWare Center between November 13, 2014 and June 25, 2019 and have served customers in suites or at catered events for which SMG has imposed automatic service charges, including all those who have worked as banquet servers (including lead servers and on call servers), banquet captains, banquet bartenders, suite attendants, and suite runners. Final approval was granted on November 14, 2019. All claims have been processed and all eligible class members have been paid.

JND Co-Founders Neil Zola and David Isaac oversaw the administration for the In re Worldcom Securities Litigation, No. 02-cv-3288 (S.D.N.Y.) (DLC), the second largest securities class action settlement of all time at over $6.15 billion. This was one of the largest administrations ever in a securities class action with four million notices mailed and nearly one million claims filed. The administration included over 40 different securities, four separate settlement pools, and extensive calculations requiring currency conversion, all arising out of 14 separate settlements. Mr. Zola and Mr. Isaac worked with plaintiffs’ counsel from the class certification stage through distribution. They oversaw all aspects of this administration including working extensively with the audit firm of Eisner Amper who was appointed by the Court to review the claims determinations. Those determinations were found to be more than 99% accurate.