Sims v. Cellco Partnership

Filing 87

ORDER REGARDING CONTINUED HEARING ON FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT. The parties shall provide relevant authority by September 29, 2009. The continued hearing regarding final approval is reset to October 2, 2009. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on September 11, 2009. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DAN MARMALEFSKY (CA SBN 95477) dmarmalefsky@mofo.com PENELOPE A. PREOVOLOS (CA SBN 87607) ppreovolos@mofo.com TIFFANY CHEUNG (CA SBN 211497) tcheung@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Attorneys for Defendant CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION MICHELLE SIMS, individually, and on behalf of a class similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, Case No. 07-1510 MMC [Hon. Maxine M. Chesney] v. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CONTINUED HEARING ON FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, a Delaware general partnership, Defendant. Complaint Filed: March 15, 2007 STIP. REGARDING CONTINUED HEARING ON FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT C-07-1510 MMC sf-2737809 1 2 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 Dated: WHEREAS, at the July 24, 2009 hearing regarding final approval of the settlement in this case, the Court ordered the parties to submit a proposal regarding the distribution of funds to charitable organizations under the settlement, and continued the hearing until October 2, 2009; WHEREAS, on August 24, 2009, the parties filed a joint submission regarding their proposal for this charitable distribution and informed the Court that they could appear for a hearing before the October 2 date previously set by the Court; WHEREAS, the Court subsequently advanced the October 2 hearing to September 18 and ordered the parties to provide, by September 15, authority addressing "whether the proposed change in distribution may be adopted by the Court in the absence of additional notice to the class"; WHEREAS, undersigned Lead Class Counsel had previously made plans to be on the East Coast on September 18 to celebrate his wedding anniversary. The parties hereby stipulate and request that the Court enter an order as follows: 1. By September 29, 2009, the parties shall provide the Court with relevant authority regarding whether their proposal on the charitable distribution may be adopted by the Court without additional notice to the class; and 2. The continued hearing regarding final approval of the settlement will be re-set to October 2, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. September 10, 2009 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP By: /s/ Tiffany Cheung Tiffany Cheung Attorneys for Defendant CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS STIP. REGARDING CONTINUED HEARING ON FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT C-07-1510 MMC sf-2737809 1 1 2 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 Dated: September 10, 2009 THE JACOBS LAW FIRM, CHTD. By: /s/ John G. Jacobs John G. Jacobs Co-Lead Class Counsel IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 11, 2009 ___________________________________ Hon. Maxine Chesney United States District Court Judge GENERAL ORDER 45 ATTESTATION I, Tiffany Cheung, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Continued Hearing on Final Approval of the Settlement. In compliance with General Order 45, I hereby attest that John G. Jacobs of The Jacobs Law Firm, Cthd. has concurred in this filing. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP By: /s/ Tiffany Cheung Tiffany Cheung Attorneys for Defendant VERIZON WIRELESS STIP. REGARDING CONTINUED HEARING ON FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT C-07-1510 MMC sf-2737809 2

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?