Andrews Farms et al v. Calcot Ltd et al

Filing 327

STIPULATION and ORDER Granting Extension of Time to File the motion for approval of settlement signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/20/2011. Filing Deadline: 6/6/2011. (Leon-Guerrero, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 ANDREWS FARMS, et al Plaintiffs, v. CALCOT. LTD., et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:07-cv-00464 LJO JLT ORDER ON STIPULATION GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT (Doc. 326) 16 On March 28, 2011, the Court ordered the parties to file their stipulated notice of settlement no 17 later than April 20, 2011 and their motion for approval of the settlement by May 12, 2011. (Doc. 319) 18 However, due to the serious illness of one of Plaintiffs’ counsel, on April 19, 2011, the parties sought a 19 two-week extension, to May 3, 2011, to file their stipulated notice of settlement. (Doc. 320) On April 20 20, 2011, the Court granted the stipulation. (Doc. 321) 21 On May 3, 2011, the parties sought a second extension of time within which to finalize their 22 settlement and their first extension of time within which to file their motion for approval of the 23 settlement. (Doc. 322) In support of this request, the parties reported that the serious illness of one of 24 plaintiffs’ counsel had not resolved as quickly as they had anticipated and this continued to delay 25 settlement efforts. Id. at 2. The parties asserted that they would file the Notice of Settlement no later 26 than May 12, 2011 and their motion for approval of the settlement by May 23, 2011. Id. On May 4, 27 2011, the Court granted the extension. (Doc. 323) In the order granting the extension, the Court warned, 28 “No further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary good cause.” Id. 1 1 at 2. 2 On May 17, 2011, the parties filed their settlement agreement. (Doc. 325) In the document, 3 executed by all counsel, the parties agreed that “The Parties shall on or before May 23, 2011, jointly file 4 with the Court an Application for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.” Id. at 2, ¶ 1.0. 5 Counsel agreed that they “shall cooperate in good faith to jointly prepare the Preliminary Application.” 6 Id. 7 Currently before the Court is the May 19, 2011, stipulation of the parties in which they seek an 8 extension of time within which to file their motion for approval of the settlement. (Doc. 326) In essence, 9 counsel reports that drafting a settlement agreement that was acceptable to all parties was more wieldy 10 and time consuming than they had anticipated and the illness of one of Plaintiffs’ delayed these efforts. 11 Id. at 2. They assert that they could not begin drafting the motion for approval of the settlement until the 12 settlement agreement was accepted by all counsel because the terms of the settlement were not certain 13 until that time. Id. Finally, counsel agree that the time remaining until the current filing deadline is 14 insufficient to prepare a comprehensive and accurate motion. Id. Counsel commit that they will file the 15 motion for approval of the settlement no later than June 6, 2011, despite that next week includes the 16 Memorial Day holiday weekend. 17 Given the relatively brief extension of time sought, counsel’s representation that requiring strict 18 compliance with the current deadline would likely result in a deficient motion and based significantly 19 upon counsels’ commitment to file the motion no later than June 6, 2011 and the Court’s understanding 20 that this representation means that counsel/the parties will not seek another extension, the Court 21 GRANTS the stipulation. 22 23 Therefore, the Court ORDERS that the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement SHALL BE FILED no later than June 6, 2011. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: May 20, 2011 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?