Harden v. WM Wrigley Jr. Co.
Filing
61
AMENDED MOTION by Plaintiff Sharon Harden for judgment of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Robinson, Aron) Modified on 1/21/2009 (kj, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION SHARON HARDEN, on behalf of herself and all other Plaintiffs known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. WM. WRIGLEY JR., CO., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. 07 CV 5928 Judge Matthew F. Kennelly Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan
PLAINTIFF'S Amended MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Plaintiff, by her attorneys respectfully requests that this Court enter an order: 1. Finally certifying a class for settlement purposes only of all persons who
were employed by Defendant as a Customer Financial Service Representative, Customer Support Account Manager, Financial Analyst Customer Support, or Customer Support Specialist ("CSAMs") at any time during the period of October 19, 2004 through and including November 30, 2008 and; 2. Finally and permanently approving the Class Action Settlement
Agreement entered into by the parties and dismissing this case on the merits with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 54; 3. Finding that the Notice to the Class was the Best Notice Practicable and
fairly notified the Class of their rights in connection with the settlement; 4. Set a schedule for the parties to submit to the Court Plaintiffs' Counsels'
request for an award of attorneys' fees in connection with the Class Action Settlement.
CH1 11646046.1
A Memorandum in Support is attached. DATED: January 20, 2009 Counsel for Plaintiff Neal C. Zazove Neal Zazove & Associates, P.C. 19 South LaSalle Street Suite 1200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 /s/Aron Robinson Aron David Robinson Law Office of Aron D. Robinson 19 South LaSalle Street Suite 1200 Chicago, Illinois 60603
CH1 11646046.1
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?