Amanda Sateriale et al v. R J Reynolds Tobacco Co et al

Filing 234

FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: It is hereby ADJUDGED and DECREED that: Pursuant to the settlement reached by the parties, this Court hereby dismisses this action on the merits and with prejudice. See document for further details. (gk)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Marc K. Callahan (State Bar No. 156616)
John A. Vogt (State Bar No. 198677)
Ann T. Rossum (State Bar No. 281236)
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive
Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612.4408
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: +1.949.553.7539
Email: [e-mail]
Geoffrey K. Beach (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Howell A. Burkhalter (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE LLP
One West Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO.

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18
19

AMANDA SATERIALE, et al.,

20
21
22
23

Case No. CV 09 08394 CAS (SSx)
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs,
v.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO.,
Defendant.

24
25
26
27

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT

1

It is hereby ADJUDGED and DECREED THAT:

2

1.

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over all

3

parties to the action, including all members of the class it certified on December 19,

4

2014, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), consisting of “all persons in

5

California who, as adult smokers, were assigned registration numbers by RJR, collected

6

C-Notes, and held C-Notes as of October 1, 2006,” but excluding “(1) the Judges

7

presiding over the Actions, and members of their families; (2) the Defendant, its

8

subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the

9

Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers,

10

directors, and employees; and (3) any person that opted out of the class that the Court

11

certified on December 19, 2014.”

12
13
14

2.

Pursuant to the settlement reached by the parties, this Court hereby

dismisses this action on the merits and with prejudice.
3.

This Court hereby directs entry of this judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of

15

Civil Procedure 58 based upon the Court’s finding that there is no just reason for delay

16

of enforcement or appeal of this judgment, notwithstanding the Court’s retention of

17

jurisdiction to oversee implementation and enforcement of the

18

settlement agreement.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 5th day of May, 2016

21

___________________________________
HONORABLE CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22
23
24
25
26

JUDGMENT ENTERED: May 5, 2016
By: CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

27
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT

1