Ragano-v-Michaels Stores, Inc.

Filing 50

ORDER granting 49 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL HEARING filed by Anita C. Ragano, Teri McDonald. ORDER Setting Hearing on Preliminary Approval. Motion Hearing reset for 10/26/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Charles R. Breyer.. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 9/28/2012. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Scott Edward Cole, Esq. (S.B. # 160744) Hannah R. Salassi, Esq. (S.B. # 230117) SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 Email: scole@scalaw.com Email: hsalassi@scalaw.com Web: www.scalaw.com Attorneys for Representative Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class 8 9 10 12 ATTORNEY’S AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 11 13 14 AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP GREGORY W. KNOPP (SBN 237615) GARY M. MCLAUGHLIN (SBN 217832) gknopp@akingump.com gmmclaughlin@akingump.com 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90067-3012 Telephone: 310-229-1000 Facsimile: 310-229-1001 Attorneys for Defendant Michaels Stores, Inc. 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION 18 19 20 ANITA C. RAGANO, TERI MCDONALD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 21 22 vs. 23 MICHAELS STORES, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 24 25 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 11-3908 CRB CLASS ACTION JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL HEARING 26 27 28 -1JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL HEARING 1 Representative Plaintiffs Anita Ragano and Teri McDonald (“Plaintiffs”), 2 individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and defendant Michaels Stores, Inc. 3 (“Defendant”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request that 4 the Court continue the preliminary approval hearing scheduled for October 12, 2012 to October 26, 5 2012. 6 The parties’ Request is made on the following grounds: 7 1. 8 9 10 12 ATTORNEY’S AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 11 On August 7, 2012, the parties conducted a mediation and have entered into settlement negotiations. 2. The parties are currently resolving final details of the settlement agreement, and need additional time to do so prior to filing a motion for preliminary approval. 3. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter the Order jointly proposed by the parties. 13 14 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 15 Dated: September 27, 2012 SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 16 By: 17 18 /s/ Hannah R. Salassi Hannah R. Salassi, Esq. Attorneys for the Representative Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class 19 20 Dated: September 27, 2012 AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 21 22 23 By: /s/ Gary McLaughlin Gary McLaughlin, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Michaels Stores, Inc. 24 25 26 27 28 -2JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL HEARING [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 2 UPON GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, AND PURSUANT TO STIPULATION 3 BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: The October 4 12, 2012 Preliminary Approval Hearing is hereby continued to October 26, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. OO IT IS S ER LI harle Judge C 14 15 A H 13 RT ATTORNEY’S AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 12 yer s R. Bre NO SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 11 R NIA 10 Honorable Charles Breyer United States District Judge RED RDE FO 9 Dated: ______________________ September 28, 2012 RT U O 8 S DISTRICT TE C TA ______________________________ S 7 UNIT ED 6 N F D IS T IC T O R C 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL HEARING

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?