Syed v. M-I, LLC et al
Filing
75
STIPULATION and ORDER 74 signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 10/23/2015 resetting the Final Approval Hearing for 1/25/2016 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. The parties shall file briefs in support of the final approval of the settlement no later than 14 days before the fairness hearing. (Kirksey Smith, K)
1
2
3
4
5
LARRY R. NELSON (BAR NUMBER 97291)
RAYMOND J. MURO (BAR NUMBER 259871)
NELSON thGRIFFIN LLP
800 West 6 Street, Suite 788
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone:
(213) 833-0155
Facsimile:
(213) 833-0160
Attorneys for Defendant
PRECHECK, INC.
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sarmad Syed, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
M-I LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
PreCheck, Inc., a Texas Corporation, and Does 1
through 10,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:14-cv-00742-WBS-BAM
Assigned for all purposes to:
Hon. William B. Shubb, Courtroom 5
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE FINAL
APPROVAL HEARING DATE;
[Proposed] ORDER
COME NOW, Plaintiff SARMAD SYED and Defendant PRECHECK, INC. (“PreCheck” or
“Defendant”), by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby stipulate to, and move the Court for
an order continuing the Final Approval Hearing to a date after January 12, 2016.
On September 18, 2015, the Court entered its Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action
Settlement [Dkt. No. 73] (“Preliminary Approval Order”). The Preliminary Approval Order set a Final
Approval Hearing date of December 14, 2015, at 2:00 p.m.
Pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. sections 1332(d), 1453, and
1711–1715, the parties are to provide notice of their class action settlement to the appropriate
Attorney(s) General. The CAFA Notice was sent on October 13, 2015. CAFA requires that the final
approval of a class action settlement take place after 90 days from the notice. 28 U.S.C. section
1
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING DATE;
[Proposed] ORDER
1
1715 provides:
2
(d) Final Approval.— An order giving final approval of a proposed settlement may not be
issued earlier than 90 days after the later of the dates on which the appropriate Federal
official and the appropriate State official are served with the notice required under
subsection (b).
3
4
5
6
Id., emphasis added.
7
8
Given that CAFA Notice was sent on October 13, 2015, the current Final Approval Hearing date of
9
December 14, 2015, does not comply with 28 U.S.C. section 1715.
10
The parties therefore need and respectfully request a new Final Approval Hearing date of no
11
earlier than January 12, 2016, to comply with CAFA. The parties need the new Final Approval Hearing
12
date to be published on the notices to be sent out to the class members.
13
The parties hereby stipulate to, and move for, the following:
14
1.
That the Final Approval Hearing date, currently set for December 14, 2015, be continued
15
to a date no earlier than January 12, 2016.
16
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
17
18
Date: October 20, 2015
PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.
19
20
By:
21
22
23
Date: October 20, 2015
/s Peter R. Dion-Kindem
PETER R. DION-KINDEM
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SARMAD SYED
NELSON GRIFFIN LLP
24
25
By:
26
27
/s Raymond J. Muro
RAYMOND J. MURO
Attorneys for Defendant
PRECHECK, INC.
28
2
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING DATE;
[Proposed] ORDER
ORDER
1
2
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and motion, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY
3
ORDERED that the Final Approval Hearing is continued to January 25, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in
4
Courtroom 5. The parties shall file briefs in support of the final approval of the settlement no later than
5
14 days before the fairness hearing.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
Dated: October 23, 2015
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING DATE;
[Proposed] ORDER
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?