Williams, et al v. City of Antioch, et al
Filing
234
ORDER OF DISMISSAL re 232 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment In Support of Final Approval of Settlement filed by Priscilla Bunton, Mary Ruth Scott, Karen Latreece Coleman, Alyce Denise Payne, City of Antioch, Santeya Danyell Williams. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 4/3/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2012)
1
(Counsel listed on next page)
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
SANTEYA DANYELL WILLIAMS, MARY
No. C-08-2301 SBA
RUTH SCOTT, KAREN LATREECE
COLEMAN, PRISCILLA BUNTON, and
DISMISSAL ORDER
ALYCE DENISE PAYNE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF ANTIOCH,
Defendant.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Impact Fund
BRAD SELIGMAN (SBN 083838)
bseligman@impactfund.org
JOCELYN D. LARKIN (SBN 110817)
125 University Avenue, Suite 102
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: 510.845.3473
Facsimile: 510.845.3654
McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery,
Borges & Ambacher
THOMAS G. BEATTY (SBN 75794)
JAMES V. FITZGERALD, III (SBN
55632)
1211 Newell Avenue, P.O. Box 5288
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: 925.939.5530
Facsimile: 925.939.0203
Bingham McCutchen LLP
FRANK B. KENNAMER (SBN 157844)
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415.393.2000
Facsimile: 415.393.2286
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY OF ANTIOCH
Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights
of the San Francisco Bay Area
OREN M. SELLSTROM (SBN 161074)
131 Steuart Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: 415.543.9444
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation of Northern California
ALAN L. SCHLOSSER (SBN 49957)
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415.621.2493
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Public Advocates, Inc.
RICHARD A. MARCANTONIO (SBN
139619)
131 Steuart Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: 415.431.7430
Covington & Burling LLP
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. (SBN
172732)
hgilliam@cov.com
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415.591.6000
Facsimile: 415.591.6091
25
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Certified Class
26
27
28
1
1
2
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2012, Magistrate Judge Corley granted preliminary
3
4
5
6
7
approval of the settlement of this action, embodied in the Settlement Agreement, attached
as Appendix 1 to the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement;
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2012, Magistrate Judge Corley issued a Report and
Recommendation finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate in all
8
9
10
11
12
respects within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and applicable law, and thus
recommended that the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement be granted;
WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Corley has found that the notice sent to the Class
Members fairly and adequately informed the Class of the terms of the settlement, was
13
14
consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and due process, and was given in the manner
15
prescribed by the Settlement Agreement and the Court’s order preliminarily approving
16
the settlement;
17
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2012, this Court issued an order Accepting Magistrate
18
19
20
Judge Corley’s Report and Recommendation recommending that the Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement be granted:
21
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
22
1.
In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, this Court hereby enters final
23
judgment in this action, and dismisses this action with prejudice.
24
25
26
2.
The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement for three years
following the entry of the Final Approval Order. The Court appoints Magistrate Judge
27
28
2
1
2
Corley to consider any claims alleging a violation of the Agreement.
IT IS SO ORDERED
3
4
5
Dated: 4/3/12
_________________________________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Court
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?