Adams et al v. Apartment Investment and Management Company et al

Filing 24

ORDER. The Joint Motion For Approval of Collective Action Settlement 19 filed 05/26/2009, is APPROVED, but only as to the parties in this case, without further hearing or argument. The Settlement Agreement 18 filed under seal on 05/26/2009, is APP ROVED, but only as to the parties in this case, and its terms and provisions are ORDERED IMPLEMENTED effective forthwith, but only as to the parties in this case. Each party to this action SHALL PERFORM all relevant provisions of the Settlement Agreement 18 by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 05/28/2009.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No. 09-cv-00003-REB-BNB MYA ADAMS, et al, Plaintiffs, v. APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY, AIMCO PROPERTIES,LP., and AIMCO BETHESDA HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants. ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT Blackburn, J. The matter before me is the Joint Motion For Approval of Collective Action Settlement [#19]1 filed May 26, 2009. After reviewing the motion and the record, I conclude that the motion should be approved, but only as to the parties in this case.2 THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That the Joint Motion For Approval of Collective Action Settlement [#19] filed May 26, 2009, is APPROVED, but only as to the parties in this case, without

"[#19]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order. This qualification is required because the joint motion requests approval on behalf of 378 plaintiffs, only 38 of whom are named and included in this case. See Joint Motion [19] at 4, ¶ 12. Thus, my jurisdiction extends only to the parties in this case.
2

1

further hearing or argument3; 2. That the Settlement Agreement [#18] filed under seal on May 26, 2009, is APPROVED, but only as to the parties in this case, and its terms and provisions are ORDERED IMPLEMENTED effective forthwith, but only as to the parties in this case; and 3. That each party to this action SHALL PERFORM all relevant provisions of the Settlement Agreement [#18]. Dated May 28 2009, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:

The joint motion and concomitant Settlement Agreement [#18] filed under seal on May 26, 2009, are sufficiently circumstantiated; thus, obviating the necessity for an evidentiary hearing or oral argument.

3

2