Daniel et al v. Ford Motor Company
Filing
149
ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 5/9/17l, ORDERING that Plaintiffs' #147 Request for an Extension of Time to Complete Class Notice is hereby GRANTED. The time to complete notice is EXTENDED up to and including 5/26/17 and the opt-out period is EXTENDED to 6/26/17. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
John B. Thomas (Bar No. 269538)
jthomas@hicks-thomas.com
Hicks Thomas LLP
8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 172
Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone: (916) 388-0833
Facsimile: (916) 691-3261
J. Allen Carney (pro hac vice)
acarney@cbplaw.com
Hank Bates (Bar No. 167688)
hbates@cbplaw.com
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 510
Little Rock, Arkansas 72202
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
Counsel for Plaintiff MARGIE DANIEL
13
14
15
16
HICKS THOMAS LLP
8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 172
Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone: (916) 388-0833
12
HICKS THOMAS LLP
8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 172
Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone: (916) 388-0833
HICKS THOMAS LLP
8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 172
Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone: (916) 388-0833
HICKS THOMAS LLP
8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 172
Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone: (916) 388-0833
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
17
MARGIE DANIEL, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals,
18
Plaintiff,
19
20
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation,
21
Defendant.
22
23
24
25
26
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:11-cv-02890-WBS-EFB
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
UNOPPOSED REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE
CLASS NOTICE
27
28
{00180614.DOCX}
1
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Unopposed Request for Extension of Time to Complete Class Notice
1
10, 2017, this Court issued an Order approving class notice and the notice plan proposed by
4
Plaintiff (Doc. 142). During the process of obtaining current addresses for Class Members,
5
Plaintiff was notified that the California Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) required a
6
court order specifically ordering the release of the requested information for the purpose of
7
disseminating notice to the Class. On April 14, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Unopposed
8
Request for Amendment of Order Approving Class Notice and Notice Plan (Doc. 144) and
9
entered an order amending its February 10, 2017 order (the “Amended Order”). The Amended
10
Order was submitted to the DMV. The DMV has not yet released the data; therefore, Plaintiff
11
has requested this extension of time to complete notice by May 26, 2017, extending the opt-out
12
13
HICKS THOMAS LLP
8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 172
Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone: (916) 388-0833
3
HICKS THOMAS LLP
8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 172
Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone: (916) 388-0833
(the “Parties”) were given until May 8, 2017 to complete class notice and opt out. On February
HICKS THOMAS LLP
8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 172
Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone: (916) 388-0833
Pursuant to the Court’s Status Order dated November 8, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendant
2
HICKS THOMAS LLP
8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 172
Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone: (916) 388-0833
1
period to June 26, 2017. Defendant Ford Motor Company does not oppose this request.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Request for an Extension of Time to
14
Complete Class Notice is hereby GRANTED. The time to complete notice is extended up to and
15
including May 26, 2017 and the opt-out period is extended to June 26, 2017.
16
Dated: May 9, 2017.
17
18
19
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John Thomas
John B. Thomas
Hicks Thomas LLP
20
J. Allen Carney
Hank Bates
Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC
21
Counsel for Plaintiff MARGIE DANIEL
22
SO ORDERED.
23
Dated: May 9, 2017
24
25
26
27
28
{00180614.DOCX}
2
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Unopposed Request for Extension of Time to Complete Class Notice
1
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?