9 unchanged sentences
and DBA Distribution Services, Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County, Case No.
−Removed: On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California against Radiant Global Logistics, Inc.
−Removed: (“RGL”) and DBA Distribution Services, Inc.
−Removed: (“DBA”, a wholly-owned subsidiary) (collectively referred to as the “Company”), and two third-party staffing companies (collectively with the Company, the “Staffing Defendants”) with whom RGL and DBA contracted for temporary employees.
−Removed: In the lawsuit, Ms.
−Removed: Barahona, on behalf of herself and the putative class, sought damages and penalties under California law, plus interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs, along with equitable remedies, alleging that she and the putative class were the subject of unfair and unlawful business practices, including certain wage and hour violations relating to, among others, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, and failure to reimburse employees for work-related expenses.
−Removed: Barahona alleged that she was jointly employed by the staffing companies and RGL and DBA.
−Removed: RGL and DBA denied Ms.
−Removed: Barahona’s allegations in their entirety, denied that they were liable to Ms.
−Removed: Barahona or the putative class members in any way, and vigorously defended against these allegations based upon a preliminary evaluation of applicable records and legal standards.
−Removed: Barahona were to prevail on her allegations on substantially all claims against the Company, the Company could be liable for uninsured damages in an amount that, while not significant when evaluated against either the Company’s assets or current and expected level of annual earnings, could be material when judged against the Company’s earnings in the particular quarter in which any such damages arose, if at all.
On February 19, 2019, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the class action case, which the court granted on March 14, 2019, and subsequently entered judgment in favor of the Company on April 30, 2019.
−Removed: On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal, seeking appellate review.
−Removed: The trial judge’s decision to dismiss the case and enter judgment in favor of the Company will be reviewed by the Second District Court of Appeal for the State of California.
−Removed: To date, however, the Court of Appeal has not issued an appellate briefing schedule.
−Removed: At this time, the Company is unable to express an opinion as to the likely outcome of the matter.
−Removed: In addition to the information set forth in this Form 10-Q, you should carefully consider the risk factors discussed in Part I, Item 1A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2019.
+Added: By mutual written agreement of the parties, the matter was dismissed by Order of the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division 8 on February 28, 2020.
+Added: This matter is closed.
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.