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)
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?