In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Filing 147

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting (144) Motion to Amend/Correct. Associated Cases: 5:11-cv-02509-LHK, 5:11-cv-03538-LHK, 5:11-cv-03539-LHK, 5:11-cv-03540-LHK, 5:11-cv-03541-LHK, 5:12-cv-01262-LHK(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2012)

Download PDF
Case5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document144-1 Filed06/03/12 Page2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Richard M. Heimann (State Bar No. 63607) Kelly M. Dermody (State Bar No. 171716) Eric B. Fastiff (State Bar No. 182260) Brendan Glackin (State Bar No. 199643) Dean Harvey (State Bar No. 250298) Anne B. Shaver (State Bar No. 255928) LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-3339 Telephone: 415.956.1000 Facsimile: 415.956.1008 Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064) SAVERI LAW FIRM 255 California, Suite 450 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415.500.6800 Facsimile: 415.500.6803 10 11 Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiff Class 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 SAN JOSE DIVISION 16 17 18 19 IN RE: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 1______ All Actions 20 After consideration of the unopposed motion submitted by Plaintiffs, and the papers on 21 22 file herein, the Court orders that Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Amend Pretrial Order No. 1 is 23 granted. The Court hereby jointly appoints Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and 24 Saveri Law Firm as Interim Co-lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 June 4, 2012 Dated: ______________ 27 _______________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 28 1041154.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER MASTER DOCKET NO. 11-CV-2509-LHK

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?