Aguilar et al v. Citizens Automobile Finance, Inc et al

Filing 118

Notice of Tentative Ruling and Questions for Hearing. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on December 3, 2012. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 JOSE AGUILAR, et al., 10 Plaintiffs, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 9 12 No. C 10-05345 JSW v. NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING CITIZENS AUTOMOBILE FINANCE, INC., et al., 13 14 Defendants. / 15 16 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE 17 NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE 18 HEARING SCHEDULED ON DECEMBER 7, 2012 at 9:00 A.M.: 19 The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does 20 not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to 21 rely on legal authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and 22 opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies 23 available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED 24 to submit the citations to the authorities only, with pin cites and without argument or additional 25 briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral 26 argument to explain their reliance on such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of 27 counsel attorneys who are working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the 28 Court’s questions contained herein. 1 The Court tentatively grants the motion for final approval and the motion for fees and 2 costs. The Court tentatively overrules the objection submitted by Antonio Navarette and 3 tentatively denies his alternative request for exclusion. 4 The parties shall have ten (10) minutes to address the following questions: 5 1. In his letter, dated October 24, 2012, Plaintiffs’ counsel states that he told Mr. 6 Navarette’s counsel that Mr. Navarette “is part of the settlement or ... is excluded,” but could 7 not do both. (Docket No. 113, Declaration of Bryan Kemnitzer, Ex. D.) That language does 8 not comport with Mr. Kemnitzer’s statement that “it is [his] understanding that [Mr. Navarette] 9 does not object to the settlement,” and has requested that he be excluded. (Kemnitzer Decl., ¶ 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 5.) a. 12 13 what is their position on whether Mr. Navarette objects or seeks to be excluded? b. 14 15 Is either Mr. Navarette or his counsel present in court for the hearing? If so, Did Mr. Kemnitzer speak with Mr. Navarette’s counsel after he sent the letter on October 24, 2012? c. How do Plaintiffs, and if Mr. Navarette is present, how does he respond to 16 Defendants’ position that (a) Mr. Navarette is a member of the settlement class; 17 and (b) that his request to be excluded from the settlement is improper and 18 untimely? 19 20 21 22 23 24 2. Have there been any additional objections or requests for exclusion since November 16, 2012? 3. Have the parties complied with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1715 and, if so, where in the record can the Court find proof of compliance? See 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 3, 2012 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 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?