Kent v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 110

ORDER CLOSING CASE FILE. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 4, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 8 MICHAEL A. KENT, BOYD DAUGHERTY, DANIEL JOHANNING, and JAKUB CMIRAL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, ORDER CLOSING CASE FILE Plaintiffs, 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, 12 Defendant. / 13 14 No. C 09-05341 WHA On September 20, 2011, Judge Fogel granted final approval of the settlement of this class 15 action, granted class counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees, and entered final judgment. A week 16 later, the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge (Dkt. No. 107). There are no pending 17 motions. The parties were ordered to show cause why the file should not be closed 18 (Dkt. No. 108). In a joint filing, the parties requested that the file remain open for two reasons: 19 (1) the appeals period has not yet run; and (2) the settlement program has not yet been 20 implemented. The parties, however, “do not anticipate” that an appeal will be filed or that 21 judicial assistance will be needed in implementing the settlement program (Dkt. No. 109). Good 22 cause has not been shown for keeping the file open. No unresolved issues are pending, and the 23 parties do not anticipate that additional issues will arise. Accordingly, the Clerk SHALL CLOSE 24 THE FILE. If additional issues do arise in the future, the file may be re-opened as needed. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 Dated: October 4, 2011. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?