In Re: Kentucky Grilled Chicken Coupon Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation

Filing 108

MOTION by In Re In Re: Kentucky Grilled Chicken Coupon Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation for judgment Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Approval of Attorney Fees, Expenses and Incentive Award (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Se ttlement Agreement, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 1 to McMorrow Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 2 (Group) to McMorrow Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 3 (Group) to McMorrow Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 4 (Group) to McMorrow Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 5 to McMo rrow Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 6 to McMorrow Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 7 to McMorrow Declaration, # 10 Exhibit 8 to McMorrow Declaration, # 11 Exhibit 9 to McMorrow Declaration, # 12 Exhibit 10 to McMorrow Declaration, # 13 Declaration Of Jay Edelson)(McMorrow, Michael)

Case 2:08-cv-04876-AHM-FMO Document 121

Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:2328

Case 2:08-cv-04876-AHM-FMO Document 121

Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2329

Case 2:08-cv-04876-AHM-FMO Document 121

Filed 05/12/10 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:2330

Case 2:10-cv-05484-GW -JCG Document 81-1
#:747

Filed 06/09/11 Page 1 of 2 Page ID

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:10-cv-05484-GW -JCG Document 81-1
#:748

Filed 06/09/11 Page 2 of 2 Page ID

Case 2:08-cv-00285-DMC -JAD Document 207

Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 2154

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________)
In Re:
)
)
VYTORIN/ZETIA
)
MARKETING SALES PRACTICES
)
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
)
LITIGATION
)
____________________________________)
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO
)
ALL CASES
)
____________________________________)

MDL NO. 1938
Master Docket No. 08-285 (DMC)

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO WITHDRAW OBJECTION TO CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT OF SAM A. CANNATA AND DENNIS P. LEVIN
Class members Sam A. Cannata and Dennis Levin (“Objectors”) by and through
the undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 23 (e), hereby move this Honorable
Court to withdraw their objections to the proposed class action settlement and the request
for attorneys’ fees for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum attached hereto. Neither
Class Counsel nor defense counsel has any objections to this Motion.
Respectfully submitted

/s/Stephen Tsai____________
991 U.S. Highway 22 West
Bridgewater, N.J. 07060
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]
Edward F. Siegel (Ohio Bar 0012912)
27600 Chagrin Blvd. #340
Cleveland Ohio 44122

Voice: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

1

Case 2:08-cv-00285-DMC -JAD Document 207

Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 2155

Edward W. Cochran
(Ohio Bar no. 0032942)
20030 Marchmont Rd.
Cleveland Ohio 44122
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Sam P. Cannata (Ohio Bar no. 0078621)
9555 Vista Way Ste. 200
Garfield Hts., Ohio 44125
Voice: [phone]
E-mail:[e-mail]
Co-counsel for Objectors
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The foregoing Motion to Withdraw Objections was filed with the Court’s
electronic system on January 29, 2010 and were by such system served on all other
counsel of record.

/s/ Stephen Tsai

2

Case 2:08-cv-00285-DMC -JAD Document 207

Filed 01/29/10 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 2156

MEMORANDUM

Class members Sam A. Cannata and Dennis P. Levin (the “Cannata Objectors”)
filed their objections to the attorneys’ fees in this matter based on the limited information
about such fees contained in the Notice as of the Objection deadline. After review of the
Motion for Fees, the voluminous materials provided therewith, and extensive discussions
with Class Counsel concerning the substance of the Class’ Claims, the challenges of the
Litigation, and the myriad of lawyers involved in this extensive MDL proceeding, the
parties have agreed as follows:
1. Class Counsel shall reduce its request for reimbursement of expenses by the
amount of Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($55,000) representing a portion of the
amounts claimed for Internet Research and Internal Copying Expenses;
2. In light of the contribution the Cannata Objectors have made to this process –
including identifying questions concerning the quantum of reimburseable
expenses for internal copying and on-line research – Class Counsel is of the view
that a reasonable fee should be paid from Class Counsel’s fee to Objectors’
Counsel which consists of a group of four law firms.
3. Such payment to Objectors’ Counsel shall be made from moneys otherwise
payable to Class Counsel and shall not affect any distribution to Class Members;
4. Class Counsel has no objections to the withdrawal of the Objections on the terms
set forth herein;
5. Defense Counsel has no objection to the withdrawal of the Objections on the
terms set forth herein.

3

Case 2:08-cv-00285-DMC -JAD Document 207

Filed 01/29/10 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 2157

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully requests that the Court grant its
motion to withdraw their objections.

4