Perez et al v. Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 224

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT AND APPROVAL OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND re 223 Stipulation filed by Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 5/26/10. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EDGAR LAW FIRM Donald S. Edgar, Esq. (SBN 139324) Jeremy R. Fietz, Esq. (SBN 200396) 408 College Avenue Santa Rosa, California 95401 Telephone: (707) 545-3200 Facsimile: (707) 578-3040 BARRON E. RAMOS (SBN 179620) Attorney at Law, a professional corporation 132 N. El Camino Real, No. 303 Encinitas, California 92924 Tel: 858-340-6019 Fax: 760-994-1354 HENDERSON CAVERLY PUM & CHARNEY LLP Kristen E. Caverly (SBN 175070) P.O. Box 9144 16236 San Dieguito Road, Suite 4-13 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Telephone: (858) 756-6342 Facsimile: (858) 756-4732 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Robert W. Tollen (SBN 038875) rtollen@seyfarth.com Kevin John Lesinski (SBN 110862) klesinski@seyfarth.com Sarah K. Hamilton (SBN 238819) shamilton@seyfarth.com 560 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Attorneys for Defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA REYMUNDO PEREZ and JERREL DOANE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC., a ) Wisconsin corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,) inclusive, ) ) Defendant. ) ) 1 STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT AND APPROVAL OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND Case No. 05-05338 PJH Case No. C 05-05338 PJH STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT AND APPROVAL OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 219; WHEREAS, on March 15, 2010, the Court issued an Order Granting Motion for Attorney's Fees, awarding $$3,500.41 in costs and 320,497.63 in attorneys' fees to Plaintiffs. Docket No. 218; WHEREAS, Defendant timely filed its Notice of Appeal on April 12, 2010. Docket No. WHEREAS, Defendant has agreed to pay, and is in the process of paying, the costs, and plaintiffs have agreed to acknowledge satisfaction of that part of the order, and are in the process of doing so, leaving solely the fee award for the appeal; WHEREAS, Defendant has obtained a supersedeas bond from Berkeley Regional Insurance Company, a recognized Federal surety, and a licensed surety in the State of California. The bond from Berkeley Regional Insurance Company is in the amount of $480,746.45, which is one and a half times the amount of the fee award. A copy is attached as Exhibit A. NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree and stipulate that the Court may enter an order: 1. 2. 3. Approving the supersedeas bond attached as Exhibit A and deeming it filed; Staying enforcement of the award pursuant to Fed. R. Civ Pro. 62(d); Directing that Defendant shall notify plaintiffs' counsel within one day in the event that the bond is released or not renewed or rendered null for any reason. DATED: May 18, 2010 BARRON E. RAMOS HENDERSON CAVERLY PUM & CHARNEY LLP EDGAR LAW FIRM By s/Jeremy R. Fietz Jeremy R. Fietz Attorneys for Plaintiffs REYMUNDO PEREZ and JERREL DOANE DATED: May 18, 2010 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP _ By s/Sarah K. Hamilton Sarah K. Hamilton Attorneys for Defendant SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC. 2 __ STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT AND APPROVAL OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND Case No. 05-05338 PJH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: May ___, 2010 UNIT ED S S DISTRICT TE C TA ER N D IS T IC T R OF 3 STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT AND APPROVAL OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND 12293650v.1 Case No. 05-05338 PJH A C LI FO __________________________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTmIlCT JUDGE Rn Ha i to hyllis J. Judge P R NIA O OR IT IS S DERED RT U O NO RT H

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?