Hall et al v. Housing Authority of the County of Marin

Filing 72

ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 69 order shortening time for hearing motion for preliminary approval of settlement. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 JACQUELYN HALL, et al., Plaintiffs, 12 13 14 v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF MARIN, ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Defendant. 15 16 No. C 12-4922 RS ____________________________________/ 17 18 Plaintiffs’ request1 for an order permitting their motion for preliminary settlement approval 19 to be heard on shortened time is granted. The motion will be heard on May 15, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. 20 The request to have “preliminary” approval of the request for attorney fees heard on the same 21 shortened schedule is denied, on grounds that “preliminary” approval of fee requests is neither 22 required nor appropriate. Although the anticipated amount of fees that will be claimed, and any 23 agreement between the parties relating thereto, are among the factors that may be considered in 24 1 25 26 27 28 Although plaintiffs labeled their request as an “ex parte application,” it was filed through the ECF system, and therefore was not presented on an ex parte basis, which would not have been warranted in any event. See Civil Local Rule 7-10 (“a party may file an ex parte motion, that is, a motion filed without notice to opposing party, only if a statute, Federal Rule, local rule or Standing Order authorizes the filing of an ex parte motion in the circumstances and the party has complied with the applicable provisions allowing the party to approach the Court on an ex parte basis.”) The request will be deemed a motion to change time, properly brought under Rule 6-3. 1 preliminarily weighing the fairness and adequacy of the settlement, the fees are not subject to 2 separate preliminary approval. In the event preliminary approval of the settlement is granted, 3 plaintiffs may refile their “preliminary” fee motion as an ordinary motion for a fee award, to be 4 heard on the same date as the final settlement approval hearing. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 Dated: 5/7/14 RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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?