Khan v. Flextronics International USA, Inc.

Filing 30

ORDER APPROVING 29 STIPULATION TO MODIFY SETTLEMENT TIMEFRAME. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 9/15/2010. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2010)

Khan v. Flextronics International USA, Inc.

Doc. 30

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

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Cody D. Knight (SBN 257627) [e-mail] m 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY Michael Lion Tracy [e-mail] Megan Ross Hutchins [e-mail] 2030 Main Street, Suite 1300 Irvine, California 92614 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff MOHD AYUB KHAN

**E-Filed 9/15/2010**

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE

MOHD AYUB KHAN, an individual, on behalf ) of himself and on behalf of The State of ) California Labor and Workforce Development ) Agency as a Private Attorney General, ) ) Plaint iff, ) ) v. ) ) FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, ) INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 ) through 10, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) )

Case No. 5:09-CV-05155-JF (HRL) STIPULATION TO MODIFY SETTLEMENT TIMEFRAME AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING SAME

Date Filed: Judge:

September 10, 2010 Hon. Jeremy Fogel

STIPULATION TO MODIFY SETTLEMENT TIMEFRAME PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Mohd Ayub Khan and Defendant Flextronics International USA, Inc. (collectively, "the Parties") hereby stipulate to request the Court to modify the Settlement Timeframe contained in the Court's August 30, 2010 order granting
STIPULATION FOR MODIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT TIMEFRAME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SAME / Case No. 5:09-CV-05155-JF (HRL) Dockets.Justia.com

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

preliminary approval of the class action settlement in this matter through executing the proposed order below. The Parties have properly met and conferred over this matter. (Declaration of Cody Knight (Knight Decl.) ¶ 5.) The reason for this Stipulation is that the Settlement Timeframe, as currently established, places the deadline for class members to opt out from, or object to, the settlement, after the date of the final fairness hearing in relation to the settlement. As a result, objections could potentially be submitted after the Court has already granted final approval and authorized distribution of funds. The parties apologize for this oversight in the submission of their original briefing and proposed order on the motion for preliminary approval, but believe that the issue can be easily corrected as described below. Notice of the settlement has not yet been mailed to the class. On August 30, 2010, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement reached by the parties in this matter. The order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement established a time frame by which certain key events were to take place in the course of the settlement (the "Administration Timeframe"). The Court set a final fairness hearing on November 5, 2010, to consider final approval of the settlement and any objections that may be filed. On September 8, 2010, counsel for the parties became aware that the Administration Timeframe established a deadline of November 15, 2010 for Class Members to postmark requests for exclusion or objections to the settlement. This is, of course, ten days after the final fairness hearing. This parties apologize for this oversight in proposing the Administration Timeframe, which went unnoticed until after the Court's grant of preliminary approval. However, the issue can be easily addressed and resolved at this juncture. No notice has been mailed to members of the Settlement Class, and notice is not scheduled to be mailed until September 15, 2010. The Parties hereby agree and stipulate to change the time frame for members of the Settlement Class to postmark requests for exclusion or objections to the settlement from 60 calendar days to 30 calendar days, subject to the approval of the Court. Given the relatively small class size of 27 individuals, the Parties believe that 30 days is more than sufficient for class
2 STIPULATION FOR MODIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT TIMEFRAME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SAME / Case No. 5:09-CV-05155-JF (HRL)

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

members to review the notice documents and prepare any desired objection or request for exclusion. The Parties are eager to bring this matter to final resolution and do not wish for the hearing on final approval of the settlement to be moved from the current date. This solution will allow the final fairness hearing to remain on November 5, 2010, while ensuring that the Settlement Timeframe provides a fair opportunit y for Class Members to object to the settlement or request exclusion before the final fairness hearing, should they choose to do so. Because this is a class action settlement, the Court's authorization is required for this change. If the Court is not inclined to adjust the objection and request for exclusion period, an alternative solution is to move the final fairness hearing to November 19, 2010 or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard. The parties strongly prefer that the current date of November 5, 2010, be retained, however, as this will greatly reduce the burden on the parties and on counsel of administering the settlement and will avoid any delay in progress towards closure of this matter. However, in the alternative to modifying the objection/exclusion timeframe, the parties request that the Court move the final fairness hearing to November 19, 2010, or as soon thereafter as practicable. SO STIPULATED: DATED: September 10, 2010 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY By /s/ Megan Ross Hutchins Megan Ross Hutchins

Attorneys for Plaintiff MOHD AYUB KHAN and the PLAINTIFF CLASS DATED: September 10, 2010 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP By /s/ Cody D. Knight Cody D. Knight

Attorneys for Defendant FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.
3 STIPULATION FOR MODIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT TIMEFRAME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SAME / Case No. 5:09-CV-05155-JF (HRL)

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
12703736v.1

--------P---S-----]- ORDER ON STIPULATION [PRO - O - ED Having reviewed the above stipulation and the concurrently-filed declaration of Cody D. Knight, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The Court's Order Granting Preliminary Approval, dated August 30, 2010, is

hereby modified to provide that Class Members shall have 30 calendar days, rather than 60 calendar days, from the mailing of the Notice by the Claims Administrator within which to postmark objections or requests for exclusion from the settlement. All other dates are to remain the same. 2. Before distribution to members of the Class, the Notice of Class Action

Settlement shall be modified accordingly to state that class members shall have 30 calendar days, rather than 60 calendar days, after the mailing of the Notice of Class Action Settlement, within which to postmark objections or requests for exclusion to the settlement. 3. The Final Fairness Hearing in regards to the settlement shall remains scheduled

for November 5, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. IT IS SO ORDERED. 9/15/2010

Dated:

, 2010

HON. JEREMY FOGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 STIPULATION FOR MODIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT TIMEFRAME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SAME / Case No. 5:09-CV-05155-JF (HRL)