Embry v. ACER America Corporation

Filing 221

ORDER re 219 Letter filed by Kevin Embry. Signed by Judge James Ware on February 24, 2012. (jwlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
NO. C 09-01808 JW

Kevin Embry,

11

ORDER CLARIFYING THAT ALL
OBJECTIONS NOT SPECIFICALLY
ADDRESSED IN FINAL APPROVAL
ORDER ARE OVERRULED

Plaintiff,
v.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
ACER America Corp.,
13
Defendant.
14
15

/
On February 14, 2012, the Court granted the parties’ Motion for Final Approval of Class

16

Action Settlement, and issued a Final Approval Order and Judgment.1 In addition, because one

17

objector to the class settlement had filed a motion to withdraw previous objectors and substitute

18

himself as an objector, the Court issued an additional Order granting the objector’s Motion for

19

Substitution but overruling his objections on the merits.2

20

Subsequent to the Court’s February 14 Approval Order, Plaintiffs sent a letter requesting

21

clarification as to whether the Court considered those objections to the settlement not addressed by

22

name in the Final Approval Order.3 Accordingly, the Court clarifies that all objections to the

23

settlement were considered and overruled. Specifically, the only objections not addressed by name

24

in the Court’s Approval Order are those filed by class member Christopher Bandas. (See Docket

25
26

1

(Final Approval Order and Judgment, hereafter, “Approval Order,” Docket Item No. 218.)

27

2

(See Docket Item No. 217.)

28

3

(See Docket Item Nos. 219.)

1

Item No. 199.) Mr. Bandas’ objections were not to the terms of the settlement itself, but only as to

2

the amount of attorney fees and the sufficiency of the evidence submitted in support of class

3

counsel’s request for fees. (See id.) In its Final Approval Order, the Court discussed at length the

4

fairness of the fee award. (See Approval Order ¶ 15.) Inherent in the finding that the fee award is

5

fair is the finding that the Court had adequate information to assess class counsel’s request for fees.

6

For purposes of clarity, however, the Court reiterates that it has considered and overruled all

7

objections to the settlement and the fee award.

8
9

Dated: February 24, 2012
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief 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

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

Adam Gutride [e-mail]
Adam Joseph Bedel [e-mail]
Jeffery David McFarland [e-mail]
Joseph Darrell Palmer [e-mail]
Sam P. Cannata [e-mail]
Seth Adam Safier [e-mail]
Stan Karas [e-mail]
Todd Michael Kennedy [e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7
8

Dated: February 24, 2012

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

9

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

By:

/s/ JW Chambers
Susan Imbriani
Courtroom Deputy