Barbosa v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.

Filing 73

FINAL JUDGMENT and Dismissal with Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 01/08/2014. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

15

CHRISTINA BARBOSA and PATRICIA
AGUILERA BARRIOS, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated
individuals,

16

Plaintiffs,

14

17
18
19
20

v.
CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORP.,
and DOES 1-50,

Case No. 1:11-cv-00275 SKO
Hon. Sheila K. Oberto
CLASS ACTION
FINAL JUDGMENT AND
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Defendants.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

1

The Court, having granted final approval of the Stipulation of Class

2

Settlement and Release Between Plaintiffs and Defendant [Fully Executed Copy]

3

(Docket # 48) (hereinafter referred to as the “Settlement” or “Settlement

4

Agreement”) as set forth in the Court’s Order Granting Joint Motion for Final

5

Approval of Class Action Settlement and Order Granting Motion for Attorneys’

6

Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Awards (Docket # 70) (“Final Approval Order”),

7
8
9

HEREBY ENTERS JUDGMENT AS FOLLOWS:
1.

The Court hereby enters judgment consistent with, and as expressly

set forth in, the terms in the Settlement Agreement for Plaintiffs Christina Barbosa,
Patricia Aguilera Barrios, and all current and former hourly production and support

10
11
12
13

employees of Defendant Cargill Meat Solutions, Corp.’s meat packing facility in
Fresno, California employed at any time between February 2, 2009, and January
16, 2013, who did not timely opt-out of the Settlement, and hereby dismisses this
case with prejudice. Ana Rodriguez Miramontes, who timely submitted a valid

14

request for exclusion from the Settlement, is not bound by this Judgment and

15

dismissal.

16

2.

The Court retains jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the terms of

17

this Judgment, and shall have continuing jurisdiction over the construction,

18

interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, the

19

Preliminary Approval Order, the Final Approval Order, and the distribution of all

20

settlement payments.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated:

January 8, 2014

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
1
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
FINAL JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE