Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc

Filing 300

Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval, Joint STIPULATION to Continue Stay, Joint STIPULATION to Expedite Hearing Date filed by Plaintiffs Good Morning to You Productions Corp, Majar Productions LLC, Rupa Marya, Robert Siegel. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Betsy C. Manifold, # 2 Proposed Order)(Manifold, Betsy)

Download PDF
1 FRANCIS M. GREGOREK (144785) 2 BETSY C. MANIFOLD (182450) 3 RACHELE R. RICKERT (190634) 4 MARISA C. LIVESAY (223247) 5 BRITTANY N. DEJONG (258766) 6 WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 7 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 8 Telephone: 619/239-4599 9 Facsimile: 619/234-4599 10 Interim Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the [Proposed] Class 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 WESTERN DIVISION 14 GOOD MORNING TO YOU PRODUCTIONS CORP., et al., 15 Plaintiffs, 16 17 v. 18 19 WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC., et al. 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Lead Case No. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx) DECLARATION OF BETSY C. MANIFOLD IN SUPPORT OF JOINT STIPULATION RE: LATE FILING OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; CONTINUANCE OF STAY AND REQUEST TO SHORTEN TIME FOR HEARING DATE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION Date: Time: Room: Judge: March 14, 2016 9:30 a.m. 650 Hon. George H. King, Chief Judge 1 I, Betsy C. Manifold, hereby declare as follows: 2 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the States of California, 3 New York, and Wisconsin, and before this Court. I am a partner with the law firm 4 Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, interim lead class counsel for 5 plaintiffs and the class. I have personal knowledge of the following facts, and if 6 called upon to do so, I could and would competently testify as to them. 2. 7 As discussed below, good cause exists for the delay of one Court day in 8 filing Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Also, 9 as the Court expressed a desire to move this case forward and the Motion is 10 unopposed, good cause also exists to shorten the hearing date. In light of the signed 11 Settlement Agreement and proposed Motion for Preliminary Approval, good cause 12 also exists to continue the stay pending the Preliminary Approval hearing and 13 Court’s determination of same. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 14 3. 15 As directed by the Court (Dkt. No. 290), on December 18, 2015, the 1 16 Parties filed a joint status report suggesting a proposed schedule and steps for 17 implementing a settlement in principal (the “Settlement”). 4. 18 On December 22, 2015, the Court stayed this action until February 1, 19 2016 to allow the Parties to file a Motion for Preliminary Approval (Dkt. No. 292). 5. The Parties, by joint stipulation filed on January 29, 2016 (Dkt. No. 20 21 298), requested that the filing date for the Motion for Preliminary Approval be 22 extended by one week to allow the Parties to resolve the remaining disputed issues. 23 1 The “Parties” are defined as the “Plaintiffs,” which collectively refers to Plaintiffs Good Morning To You Productions Corp., Robert Siegel, Rupa Marya, and 25 Majar Productions, LLC, the “Defendants” which collectively refers to Defendants 26 Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. and Summy-Birchard, Inc., and the “Intervenors”, which collectively refers to the Association for Childhood Education International 27 and the Hill Foundation, Inc. 28 24 -1- 6. 1 On January 29, 2016, the Court extended the filing date for the Motion 2 for Preliminary Approval to February 5, 2016 and extended the stay of this action to 3 February 8, 2016 (Dkt. No. 299). GOOD CAUSE FOR ONE DAY DELAY 4 5 7. After extensive negotiations over the last seven days, with continuing 6 (almost around the clock) exchange of multiple drafts of the settlement agreement, 7 notices, claim form, and other related settlement documents, Plaintiffs and 8 Defendants finally resolved the remaining Settlement issues. 8. 10 13 14 15 Plaintiffs are also prepared to file their Motion for Preliminary Approval 10. The Parties despite diligent efforts to do so were unable to sign the today. 11 12 The Parties were finally prepared to execute the Settlement Agreement 9. 9 today. Settlement Agreement on February 5, 2016. 11. The Parties have now executed the Settlement Agreement and the 16 Plaintiffs have concurrently lodged their Motion for Preliminary Approval as of this 17 date, which is one Court date late under the Court’s January 29, 2016 Order. 18 12. As the Parties were diligent and worked exhaustively to negotiate and 19 reach an agreement, the Parties believe that good cause exists and request that the 20 Court permit the late filing of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval. REQUEST TO SHORTEN TIME 21 22 23 24 13. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval, once filed, is noticed to be heard on March 14, 2015 under L.R. 6-1. 14. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval is unopposed and the Court 25 has previously expressed its desire to have this action resolved promptly and without 26 further delay. 27 28 15. The Parties request an order shortening time for the hearing of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval to February 9, 2016. -2- CONTINUANCE OF STAY 1 2 16. In light of the executed Settlement Agreement and filing of Plaintiffs’ 3 Motion for Preliminary Approval, a further stay of this action is warranted to allow 4 the Court to hear the Motion and determine if preliminary approval and notice to the 5 class is appropriate. Such a stay further conserves both judicial and the parties’ 6 resources. 7 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 8 Executed this 8th day of February 2016, in the City of San Diego, State of California. 9 By: 10 /s/ Betsy C. Manifold BETSY C. MANIFOLD 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WARNER/CHAPPELL: 22683 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?