Evangeline Red et al v. Kraft Foods Inc. et al

Filing 334

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFSINDIVIDUAL CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE& PRESERVING APPEAL ISSUES by Judge George H. Wu, Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs may appeal any of the Courts pre-trial Orders, including those issued in response to a motion brought by Defendants under Rule 12, relating to class certification, and relating to attorneys fees. Should any C ourt Orders denying class certification be vacated or reversed on appeal,the parties have agreed, and the Court recognizes, th at Plaintiffs by settling their individual claims do not waive any standing they may have to seek to be appointed as class representatives. See Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011). If, however, Plaintiffs successfully appeal any of the Courts Orders dismissing, in part, their claims on Defendants Rule 12 motions, but are unable to reverse or vacate anyCourt Order denying class certification, Plaintiffs may not assert their revived claims on an individual basis following remand. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (pj)

JS-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 EVANGELINE RED and RACHEL WHITT,
10 on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated,

11
12

Plaintiffs,
v.

13

14 KRAFT FOODS INC., KRAFT FOODS

NORTH AMERICA, AND KRAFT FOODS

15 GLOBAL, INC.,
16

Case No. CV 10-1028- GW(AGRx)
Pleading Type: Class Action
Action Filed: February 11, 2010
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’
INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE
& PRESERVING APPEAL ISSUES
Judge: The Hon. George Wu
Location: Courtroom 10

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Red et al. v. Kraft Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-01028 GW (AGRx)
[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS

1

Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement and Release between the parties, Plaintiffs’

2 claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs may appeal any of the

4 Court’s pre-trial Orders, including those issued in response to a motion brought by
5 Defendants under Rule 12, relating to class certification, and relating to attorneys’ fees.
6 Should any Court Orders denying class certification be vacated or reversed on appeal,
7 the parties have agreed, and the Court recognizes, that Plaintiffs by settling their
8 individual claims do not waive any standing they may have to seek to be appointed as
9 class representatives. See Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011).
10 If, however, Plaintiffs successfully appeal any of the Court’s Orders dismissing, in part,
11 their claims on Defendants’ Rule 12 motions, but are unable to reverse or vacate any
12 Court Order denying class certification, Plaintiffs may not assert their revived claims on
13 an individual basis following remand.
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED

16 DATED:

January 30, 2014

17
18

____________________________
The Honorable George H. Wu
U.S. District Court Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
Red et al. v. Kraft Foods Inc. et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-01028 GW (AGRx)
[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS
1980944.6