Sentences with phrase «proposed class plaintiff»

In the lawsuit of Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., Heller, the proposed class plaintiff for Uber drivers across Ontario, sued Uber for a finding that they were employees, not independent contractors.

Bosworth endorsed and applied the existing law that for the section 41 (a) bar to apply, the plaintiff for both proceedings must be the same person — it is not sufficient if the same action can be brought on a representative basis by someone other than the proposed class plaintiff.

Not exact matches

A federal appeals court on Thursday revived a proposed wage - and - hour class action against a Southern California hospital, ruling the plaintiffs could use inadmissible evidence to support their request for class certification.

Plaintiff Christopher M. Sulyma, on behalf of two proposed classes of participants in the Intel 401 (k) Savings Plan and the Intel Retirement Contribution Plan, claims that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by investing a significant portion of the plans» assets in risky and high - cost hedge fund and private equity investments.

In a decision on Friday, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson in San Francisco said the California plaintiffs may seek damages from Starbucks in their proposed nationwide class action, including for fraud and false advertising.

July 14, 2017 — / PR NEWSWIRE / - Ruby Corp. and Ruby Life Inc. (ruby), and a proposed class of plaintiffs, co-led by Dowd & Dowd, P.C., The Driscoll Firm, P.C., and Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC, have reached a proposed settlement agreement resolving the class action lawsuits that were filed beginning July 2015 following a data breach of ruby's computer network and subsequent release of certain personal information of customers of Ashley Madison, an online dating website owned and operated by Ruby Life Inc. (formerly Avid Dating Life Inc.) The lawsuits, alleging inadequate data security practices and misrepresentations regarding Ashley Madison, have been consolidated in a multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The plaintiffs in the proposed class action had alleged improper property insurance deductions, but dismissed as they neared settlement in 2015.

The Statement of Claim filed by the proposed representative Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Goodlife violated employment standards legislation and its contracts of employment with Class Members by requiring, permitting and / or suffering Class Members to work hours above those scheduled, including hours both above and below the overtime threshold, but failing to appropriately compensate Class Members as required for all hours worked.

2 Cumming J. in Vitapharm Canada Ltd. v. F Hoffman - Laroche Ltd., [2000] O.J. No. 4594 (S.C.J.) noted the following factors to aid in determining a carriage motion: the nature / scope of the causes of action advanced, the respective theories advanced to support the claims, the state of each action, the number and extent of involvement of the proposed representative plaintiffs, the relative priority of commencing the class actions, and the resources and experience of counsel.

The factors to be addressed are non - exhaustive.2 However the Court noted a particular factor, namely the proposed fee arrangement between class counsel and the proposed representative plaintiff.

[1] The Defendants, Timminco Ltd., Dr. Heinz Schimmelbusch, Robert Dietrich, Rene Boisvert, Arthur R. Spector, Jack L. Messman, John C. Fox, Michael D. Winfield and Mickey M. Yaksich, (the «Timminco Defendants») bring a motion for particulars of the Plaintiff St. Clair Pennyfeather's Amended Statement of Claim in a proposed class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. C. 6.

«The proposed class would include individuals who did not rely on any of the representations set out in the plaintiff's claims, who purchased

The pleadings met the requirements of section 4 (1) of the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, setting out a cause of action, an identifiable class of two or more persons, common issues to be determined in the claims of the class members, and a representative plaintiff who fairly and adequately represented the proposed cClass Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, setting out a cause of action, an identifiable class of two or more persons, common issues to be determined in the claims of the class members, and a representative plaintiff who fairly and adequately represented the proposed cclass of two or more persons, common issues to be determined in the claims of the class members, and a representative plaintiff who fairly and adequately represented the proposed cclass members, and a representative plaintiff who fairly and adequately represented the proposed classclass.

Notable mandates: Represent the plaintiffs in a proposed class action against provincial law enforcement agencies regarding allegedly negligent use of breathalyzer machines; acts for hundreds of pre-sale contract holders with various condominium developments who are disputing their requirement to close under consumer protection laws; defended a law firm in a four - week hearing over enforcement of a significant contingency fee agreement; acted for a number of clients in online defamation cases

That the representative plaintiff has suffered the same alleged injuries as the rest of the proposed class

A class action is a legal proceeding commenced by a representative plaintiff on behalf of themselves and a group or class of people who fall under the same definition of a proposed class.

Philippe Trudel and Bruce Johnston, the lawyers acting for the Quebec plaintiffs» class, submitted their proposed fees; New Jersey, together with several other parties to related actions, intervened to make joint submissions questioning the amount of the fees.

At the certification motion, the plaintiffs in Brown had proposed a class definition consisting of employees who had worked for CIBC after 1996 and held the job titles of analyst, investment advisor, or associate investment advisor.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba certified the action April 13, but it is still subject to Court approval of amendments to the proposed class definition and the replacement of the representative plaintiff, Shireen Sondhi.

«The proposed class members are entitled at the very least to a representative plaintiff who can be counted on to take her job seriously, review key documents and demonstrate an appropriate level of interest in a class action that is being brought in her name and that is claiming hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.»

The Plaintiffs allege that the implementation of the 2000 Beer Framework Agreement resulted in higher beer prices, both to them and to members of the proposed class.

As there was no way for the Court to determine whether all of the individuals within the proposed class of plaintiffs were or were not eligible for overtime pay as a group, the Court could not certify the proposed class.

The proposed representative plaintiffs in the class action are identified in the statement of claim by the pseudonyms «John Doe» and «Suzie Jones».

In today's case, (Ari v. ICBC) a proposed class action, the Plaintiff sued ICBC alleging various improprieties arising from an employee improperly accessing «the personal information of about 65 ICBC customers ``.

McKercher LLP has successfully represented defendants in proposed class actions through opposing the plaintiff's certification application.

The Plaintiff proposed to notify the class members by direct mail.

A proposed representative Plaintiff will need to satisfy the following requirement for the lawsuit to be certified as a class action: the pleadings must disclose a cause of action, there must be an identifiable class, the claims of the class members must raise common issues, a class action would be preferable for the resolution of the common issues, and there is a person willing to be appointed representative plaintiff who would fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class and has produced a workable plan for advancing the proposed clasPlaintiff will need to satisfy the following requirement for the lawsuit to be certified as a class action: the pleadings must disclose a cause of action, there must be an identifiable class, the claims of the class members must raise common issues, a class action would be preferable for the resolution of the common issues, and there is a person willing to be appointed representative plaintiff who would fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class and has produced a workable plan for advancing the proposed clasplaintiff who would fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class and has produced a workable plan for advancing the proposed class action.

The Court rejected plaintiffs» theory that initial wrongdoing attributable to General Mills was sufficient to establish its liability to plaintiffs, and the Court commented the proposed class «artificially narrowed» the relevant issue.

The plaintiffs» motion for certification of the proposed class action has been delayed due to the unavailability of the court to hear the motion as originally scheduled.

In a June 21 decision, the B.C. Supreme Court in Dixon v. Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc. looked beyond the identity of the proposed representative plaintiffs and instead focused on the manoeuverings of class counsel, ultimately finding the action was totally vexatious and an abuse of the court's process.

Each proposed class action was launched by plaintiffs represented by the same law firm, Merchant Law Group LLP.

While the plaintiff's attorney declined to comment on the specifics of the complaint, the lawsuit states that hundreds of claims could be included in the proposed class action.

On March 7, 2011, the proposed representative plaintiff in the Dodd action in B.C. filed an amended claim purporting to remove himself as the representative plaintiff and substituting Jane Dixon, a new representative plaintiff for the B.C. resident class, and Loretta McFadzean, representing a non-resident class.

The proposed representative plaintiffs brought a motion seeking approval of the Funding Agreement and for an order that would make the Funding Agreement binding on all putative class members.

The plaintiffs were proposed representative plaintiffs in a proposed class action.

The proposed representative plaintiffs, proposed class counsel and Bentham all objected to the required changes.

Given Perell J.'s determination that the proposed class action against the settling defendants satisfied all of the certification criteria (albeit on a less strict evaluation than would be applied in a contested certification motion), it is more likely than not that the plaintiffs would be successful if they moved to certify against the Underwriter Defendants.

In Dugai, the plaintiff investors proposed a class action alleging inadequacies in the defendant corporation's Risk Management Policies and Practices, including a cause of action for secondary market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Act (for which they require leave under s. 138.8 (1)-RRB-.

The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action in July 2009 based on claims of negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and the secondary market liability provision of the Act.

Timminco concerned a proposed class action in which the plaintiff sought to assert a claim for secondary market misrepresentation pursuant to section 138.3 of the Ontario Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 5 (the «OSA»), for which leave of the court is required under s. 138.8 (1).

The proposed representative plaintiffs, proposed class counsel and Bentham entered into a funding agreement dated August 6, 2017 (the «Funding Agreement») under which Bentham agreed to pay a portion of the legal fees and disbursements for the proposed class action on certain terms.

However, the issue has been somewhat muddied by Lupsor Estate v. Middlesex Mutual Insurance Co., [2003] O.J. No. 1038, in which the defendant was sued both as an insurer of the plaintiff and as a proposed representative of the defendant class.

At the certification motion before Justice Perell, the defendants consented to certification of the action subject to one contested issue regarding the scope of the plaintiff's proposed class definition.

He did not find the proposed representative plaintiff appropriate because she had never worked overtime, one of the key claims for the class, and had abandoned the practice of law entirely, moving to British Columbia.

The plaintiffs attempted to frame the commonality for the proposed class as a form of systemic negligence by the Integrated Security Unit («ISU») established by the RCMP, which included ISU Partners from local police and military.

The plaintiff had proposed six subclasses to the proposed class, each based on police action in different locations, as well as a residual subclass for those arrested outside of these locations, and an overlapping subclass for all individuals held at the Eastern Avenue Detention Centre.

The plaintiff's action is brought on its own behalf, and on behalf of a proposed class of all land surveyors or land surveying firms in Ontario which are the holders of copyright in drawings, maps, charts and plans that are registered, deposited or filed in Ontario land registration offices (the «Class&raqclass of all land surveyors or land surveying firms in Ontario which are the holders of copyright in drawings, maps, charts and plans that are registered, deposited or filed in Ontario land registration offices (the «Class&raqClass»).

«Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit brought over Subway's «footlong» sandwiches have decided to abandon efforts to pursue the litigation,» two months after a Seventh Circuit panel scorchingly criticized a proposed settlement («utterly worthless... no better than a racket.»)

Counsel to the plaintiffs in a proposed class action over the pension benefit entitlements of members of the clinical faculty of a university.

First, if there are existing or proposed multi-jurisdictional class proceedings elsewhere in Canada involving the same or similar subject matter, the proposed representative plaintiff in BC must provide notice of the certification application to the representative plaintiffs involved in those proceedings.