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)
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?