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)

Download PDF
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

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?