Gomez v. Perot Systems Corporation
STIPULATION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement set to be heard on 9/17/10 is submitted on the papers with no appearance and no oral argument. The Case Management Conference set for 9/17/10 is off calendar. (tdm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2010)
Gomez v. Perot Systems Corporation
CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP 1 JONATHAN E. GERTLER (Bar. No. 111531) CHRISTIAN SCHREIBER (Bar No. 245597) 2 42 Miller Avenue 3 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Tel: (415) 381-5599 Fax: (415) 381-5572 4 SCHNEIDER WALLACE 5 COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP TODD M. SCHNEIDER (Bar No. 158253) 6 JOSHUA G. KONECKY (Bar No. 182897) 7 LISA M. BOWMAN (Bar No. 253843) 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 8 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 421-7100 Fax: (415) 421-7105 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff ANGELITA GOMEZ and the proposed class 10 11 JACKSON LEWIS LLP JOANNA L. BROOKS (Bar No. 182986) 12 ANNE V. LEINFELDER (Bar No. 230272) DOUGLAS M. BRIA (Bar No. 226966) 13 199 Fremont Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 14 Tel: (415) 394-9400 Fax: (415) 394-9401 15 THE MILLER LAW GROUP 16 TIMOTHY C. TRAVELSTEAD (Bar No. 215260) 111 Sutter Street 17 San Francisco, CA 94104-4547 18 Tel: (415) 464-4300 Fax: (415) 464-4336 19 Attorneys for Defendant PEROT SYSTEMS CORPORATION 20 21 22 ANGELITA GOMEZ, 23 24 25 Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. CV-08-03337 SC STIPULATION TO SUBMIT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR RULING ON THE PAPERS WITHOUT HEARING Complaint filed: May 27, 2008 The Honorable Samuel Conti
PEROT SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a 26 Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, 27 28 Defendants.
STIPULATION TO SUBMIT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR RULING ON THE PAPERS Gomez v. Perot Systems Corp., Case No. CV-08-03337 SC Dockets.Justia.com
WHEREAS, the parties reached the core terms of a class action settlement in the above-
2 captioned case on June 19, 2010; 3 WHEREAS, the parties executed the full class action settlement agreement on August 31,
4 2010 and September 1, 2010; 5 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a Motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement
6 on September 1, 2010; 7 WHEREAS, the foregoing papers include, inter alia, the fully executed class action
8 settlement agreement, the text and procedures for notice to the settlement class; and the other 9 materials required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; 10 WHEREAS, the foregoing materials also include a proposed order setting dates for class
11 notice, requests for exclusions by class members, objections, the motion for attorneys' fees and 12 costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h), and a final fairness hearing date to be set by the Court; 13 WHEREAS, the motion is noticed for hearing on September 17, 2010, in the event the Court
14 wishes the parties to appear; 15 WHEREAS, the Court already has scheduled a Case Management Conference to take place
16 on September 17, 2010; 17 18 WHEREAS, the motion for preliminary approval is unopposed; WHEREAS, given that the motion is unopposed, all briefing respecting the motion will be
19 submitted earlier than two weeks prior to the September 17, 2010, which would otherwise be the 20 date that all reply papers would need to be filed under the Local Civil Rules if the matter were 21 opposed; 22 WHEREAS, the parties stipulate to have the matter submitted on the papers if the Court
23 does not require a hearing, or alternatively, request the Court to consider the motion on September 24 17, 2010. 25 26 1. STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST In light of the foregoing, IT IS STIPULATED between the parties that the Motion
27 for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement can be submitted on the papers without a 28
STIPULATION TO SUBMIT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR RULING ON THE PAPERS Gomez v. Perot Systems Corp., Case No. CV-08-03337 SC
ISTRIC ES D TC AT T
F D IS T IC T O R
O IT IS S
RT U O
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?