Pokorny et al v. Quixtar Inc et al

Filing 335

ORDER regarding 305 Plaintiffs' Submission of rejected claim review requests. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on April 1, 2014. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2014)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

1
2
3
4

Jeff Pokorny, Larry Blenn, and Kenneth
Busiere, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

5
6
7
8

v.
Quixtar, Inc.,
Defendant.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. C 07-0201 SC

[PROPOSED] ORDER

) CASE NO. C 07-0201 SC
)
) [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: BSM
) REQUESTS FOR REVIEW
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1

In accordance with this Court’s order of June 28, 2013 (DE 285), the Court has reviewed

2

the requests for review (the “Requests”) filed by BSM claimants whose claims were rejected in

3

whole or in part by the Claims Administrator (Rust Consulting). Eight Requests were filed.

4

After careful review of the Requests and the supporting documents submitted by each of the eight

5

claimants, and the reasons for the rejections furnished by Jason Stinehart of Rust Consulting, the

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Court hereby rules as follows with respect to the Claims Administrator’s determinations:
1) The rejection of Shadi Mahdavi’s claim is [AFFIRMED] [REVERSED] [MODIFIED
– see below].
2) The rejection of Duber Viveros’s claim is [AFFIRMED] [REVERSED] [MODIFIED
– see below].
3) The rejection of the claim of Paul and Patricia Sams is [AFFIRMED] [REVERSED]
[MODIFIED – see below].
4) The rejection of Sharron Studer’s claim is [AFFIRMED] [REVERSED] [MODIFIED

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

– see below].
5) The rejection of Esteban Parra Hernandez’s claim is [AFFIRMED] [REVERSED]
[MODIFIED – see below].
6) The rejection of Asia Malik’s claim is [AFFIRMED] [REVERSED] [MODIFIED –
see below].
7) The partial rejection of Maryann Kampenga’s claim is [AFFIRMED] [REVERSED]
[MODIFIED – see below].
8) The partial rejection of the claim of Arnold and Jennifer Prado is [AFFIRMED]
[REVERSED] [MODIFIED – see below].
With respect to the determinations listed above as MODIFIED, the specific modifications
are as follows: ___________________________________________________.

28
1
CASE NO. C 07-0201 SC

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

1
April
DONE AND ORDERED this ___ day of ____________,

.

2
________________________________________
UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
CASE NO. C 07-0201 SC

[PROPOSED] ORDER