Bond v. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
Filing
68
FINAL JUDGMENT and DISMISSAL signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/30/2012. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
1 CRAIG ACKERMANN (Bar No. 229832)
TATIANA HERNANDEZ (Bar No. 255322)
2 ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 610
3 Los Angeles, CA 90035
Telephone: (310) 277-0614
4 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
5 MELISSA MEEKER HARNETT (Bar No. 164309)
mharnett@wccelaw.com
6 JESSE B. LEVIN (Bar No. 268047)
jlevin@wccelaw.com
7 WASSERMAN, COMDEN, CASSELMAN
& ESENSTEN, L.L.P.
8 5567 Reseda Boulevard, Suite 330
Post Office Box 7033
9 Tarzana, California 91357-7033
Telephone: (818) 705-6800 • (323) 872-0995
10 Facsimile: (818) 996-8266
11 Attorneys for Plaintiff, LEE BOND and
RICHARD JAMES BURKHART,
12 individually and others similarly situated
13
14
15
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
19 LEE BOND and RICHARD JAMES
BURKHART, individually and others
20 similarly situated,
CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01662-MJS
21
FINAL JUDGMENT AND
DISMISSAL
CLASS ACTION
Plaintiffs,
22
vs.
Crtrm.: 3
Judge: Hon. Michael J. Seng
23
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC., a
24 corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
25
Defendants.
26
27
28
986044.1
1
[Proposed] Final Judgment and Dismissal
1:09-CV-01662-MJS
1
1.
The Final Approval Order was entered on July 15, 2011;
2
2.
All payments required to be made under the Settlement Agreement and
3
4
the Final Approval Order have now been made;
3.
5
6
Accordingly, the Court hereby enters Final Judgment and dismisses the
Complaint with prejudice, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Stipulation between
7
8
Named Plaintiffs and Defendant, and the Final Approval Order.
9
10
11
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated:
14
15
April 30, 2012
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
16 ci4d6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
986044.1
2
[Proposed] Final Judgment and Dismissal
1:09-CV-01662-MJS
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?