Elder v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 77

ORDER Denying #76 Motion to Expedite Hearing on Preliminary Approval of Settlement. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 06/20/17. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TIMOTHY ELDER,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

v.
HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS,
INC., et al.,

Case No. 16-cv-00278-TEH
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
EXPEDITE HEARING ON
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Now before the Court are the parties’ stipulation and request for an expedited

14

hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of settlement. ECF No. 76. The

15

parties wish to move the preliminary approval hearing from July 31, 2017 to June 26,

16

2017. They reason that if the motion for preliminary approval is heard and decided at the

17

earliest time available on the Court’s calendar, the undersigned will be able to rule on their

18

motion for final approval before he retires from the bench.

19

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1715(a), “not later than 10 days after a proposed settlement of a

20

class action is filed in court, each defendant […] is required to serve upon the appropriate

21

State official of each State in which a class member resides and the appropriate Federal

22

official a notice of the proposed settlement.” Further, Subsection (d) holds that an order

23

giving final approval of a proposed settlement may not be issued earlier than 90 days after

24

the later of the dates on which the State and Federal officials have been served. 28 U.S.C.

25

§ 1715(d).

26

The parties here have not informed the Court whether they have complied with the

27

requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1715(a). Even if they have properly served both officials, this

28

Court will not be able to rule on the motion for final approval until 90 days have passed

1

from the last date of service, which will likely be long after the undersigned’s planned

2

retirement in the beginning of August. The Court sees no reason to expedite the

3

preliminary approval hearing and hereby DENIES the present motion.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated: 06/20/17

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2