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)

Download PDF
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?