James Mitchell Hart et al v. Premier Apartments, LLC et al

Filing 48

JUDGMENT by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that: 1. The Petition to Approve Compromise of a Disputed Claim (Document No. 41 ), as amended by the Amendment to Petition for Order for Approval of Compromise (Document No. 43 ), is gr anted as set forth herein. The proposed order submitted with the Amendment to Petition for Order for Approval of Compromise (Document No. 43 -1) will be issued by the court. 2. The court hereby grants final approval to the parties' Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement) (Document No. 45 -1). The court finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable and serves the best interests of Mr. Hart. The parties are ordered to perform their obligations pursuant to the terms of the Settle ment Agreement and this Order. 3. Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application to Waive Bond Requirement Under Local Rule 17-1.7(Document No. 42 ) is granted. The bond requirement in Local Rule 17-1.7 is hereby waived. 4. Plaintiff James Mitchell Hart shall be paid $273,564.10, to be deposited into a blocked account. The court will issue the proposed orders (Document Nos. 43 -1 & ]44]-1) submitted by the parties. Withdrawals of the principal or interest may be made from the blocked account by con servator Roxsana Hart, as ordered by the state court. 5. Plaintiff Roxsana Hart shall be paid $273,564.10, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 6. Plaintiff's counsel shall be paid $333,333.33 in attorney's f ees and $21,553.46 in costs in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 7. This action is dismissed with prejudice, with all parties to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth herein. (lom) (Main Document 48 replaced on 11/27/2017) (lom).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JAMES MITCHELL HART, et al., 10 11 12 13 14 Plaintiffs, v. PREMIER APARTMENTS, LLC, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 16-8395 FMO (Ex) JUDGMENT 15 16 17 Pursuant to the Court’s Order Re: Petition for Approval of Compromise of Disputed Claim, filed contemporaneously with the filing of this Judgment, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that: 18 1. The Petition to Approve Compromise of a Disputed Claim (Document No. 41), as 19 amended by the Amendment to Petition for Order for Approval of Compromise (Document No. 20 43), is granted as set forth herein. The proposed order submitted with the Amendment to Petition 21 for Order for Approval of Compromise (Document No. 43-1) will be issued by the court. 22 2. The court hereby grants final approval to the parties’ Settlement Agreement (“Settlement 23 Agreement”) (Document No. 45-1). The court finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable and 24 serves the best interests of Mr. Hart. The parties are ordered to perform their obligations pursuant 25 to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Order. 26 3. Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Waive Bond Requirement Under Local Rule 17-1.7 27 (Document No. 42) is granted. The bond requirement in Local Rule 17-1.7 is hereby waived. 28 4. Plaintiff James Mitchell Hart shall be paid $273,564.10, to be deposited into a blocked 1 account. The court will issue the proposed orders (Document Nos. 43-1 & 44-1) submitted by 2 the parties. Withdrawals of the principal or interest may be made from the blocked account by 3 conservator Roxsana Hart, as ordered by the state court. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5. Plaintiff Roxsana Hart shall be paid $273,564.10, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 6. Plaintiff’s counsel shall be paid $333,333.33 in attorney’s fees and $21,553.46 in costs in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 7. This action is dismissed with prejudice, with all parties to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth herein. Dated this 27th day of November, 2017. 11 /s/ Fernando M. Olguin United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?