Riker v. The Inn at Schoolhouse Creek et al

Filing 22

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING THE CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL. The motion is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 27, 2010. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2010)

Riker v. The Inn at Schoolhouse Creek et al

Doc. 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP MARTIN H. ORLICK (Bar No. 083908), [e-mail] MATTHEW S. KENEFICK (Bar No. 227298), [e-mail] Two Embarcadero Center, Fifth Floor San Francisco, California 94111-3824 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants SIMPLY GREEN, INC, a California corporation; STEVEN LYNCH MUSSER and MAUREEN GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEAN RIKER, Plaintiff, v. THE INN AT SCHOOLHOUSE CREEK; SIMPLY GREEN, INC.; PETER P. BLASKO; PETER P. BLASKO TRUST; DOE TRUSTS 1 through 5; DOES TRUSTS 6 through 10; STEVEN LYNCH MUSSER; JOANNE A.TYBINK; STEVEN MUSSER; MAUREEN GILBERT; and DOES 11 THROUGH 50, Inclusive, Defendants.

CASE NO.

CV 10 1056 EMC

DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING THE CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL; PROPOSED ORDER

Complaint filed: Trial date:

March 12, 2010 none set

18 The parties are pleased to report that they reached a complete settlement in all 19 respects, including Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief, statutory damages, and reasonable statutory 20 attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs. The parties have now memorialized the settlement 21 through a Confidential Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement contemplates that the 22 Court will retain jurisdiction of the case under General Order 56 for enforcement and interpretation. 23 The parties request that the Court permit the Confidential Settlement Agreement be filed with the 24 Court under seal. 25 26 27 28
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

[PROPOSED] ORDER ALLOWING PARTIES TO FILE CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT UNDER SEAL The parties have reached a complete settlement in all respects, including Plaintiff's

1031436v1

-1-

MOTION FOR ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

claims for injunctive relief, statutory damages, and reasonable statutory attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs. The parties have now memorialized the settlement through a Confidential Settlement Agreement. The parties request that the Court permit the Confidential Settlement Agreement be filed with the Court under seal. DATED: August 19, 2010 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP MARTIN H. ORLICK MATTHEW S. KENEFICK

By: /s/ Martin H. Orlick MARTIN H. ORLICK Attorneys for Defendants SIMPLY GREEN, INC, a California corporation; STEVEN LYNCH MUSSER and MAUREEN GILBERT

12 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 counsel hereto, 20 21 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Plaintiff Jean Riker filed this action on March 12, 2010, by Agreement of the Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26 (c), and by agreement of By: /s/ Signature Authorized Attorneys for Plaintiff JEAN RIKER DATED: August 19, 2010 THIMESCH LAW OFFICES TIMOTHY S. THIMESCH GENE FARBER

22 parties, this Action has been settled in all respects. The parties have agreed to request the Court 23 retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under General Order 56. 24 2. This litigation concerns disabled access claims . The Settlement Agreement

25 is confidential and the parties have not previously disclosed its terms to the public. 26 3. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion to filing the Settlement Agreement

27 under seal. On August 1, 2010, plaintiff submitted Plaintiff's Request for Dismissal With Prejudice 28 and with Retained Jurisdiction to Interpret and Enforce Settlement Agreement. [Proposed Order].
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

1031436v1

-2-

MOTION FOR ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6

(Dkt 18]. 4. On August 9, 2010, the Court entered its Order Directing Parties to Submit a

Copy of Settlement Agreement by August 20, 2010. 5. The parties request the Court maintain continuing jurisdiction to Interpret and

Enforce the Settlement Agreement .

ORDER 1. The motion to file under seal is hereby DENIED as moot; by its Order of August 9, 2010, the 7 Court required the parties to submit the settlement but did not require that it be filed. 2. The request for continuing jurisdiction has been granted by separate order filed concurrently 8 herewith. DATED: August 27, 2010 9 HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY JUDGE OF U.S. DISTRICT COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

1031436v1

-3-

MOTION FOR ORDER