RICHARDSON v. INTERSTATE HOTELS & RESORTS, INC., C 16-06772 WHA. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170803c14
Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 02, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2017
Summary: ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART REQUEST FOR EXTENSION, AND (2) DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . The undersigned judge believes it is best for class actions to be settled after class certification has been determined in favor of the putative class. While it is expected that any settlement will be discounted for the probability of success on the merits, it is unacceptable to further discount the settlement for the probabil
Summary: ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART REQUEST FOR EXTENSION, AND (2) DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . The undersigned judge believes it is best for class actions to be settled after class certification has been determined in favor of the putative class. While it is expected that any settlement will be discounted for the probability of success on the merits, it is unacceptable to further discount the settlement for the probabili..
More
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART REQUEST FOR EXTENSION, AND (2) DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
The undersigned judge believes it is best for class actions to be settled after class certification has been determined in favor of the putative class. While it is expected that any settlement will be discounted for the probability of success on the merits, it is unacceptable to further discount the settlement for the probability (or lack thereof) of class certification. The undersigned judge has occasionally appointed "interim class counsel" in advance of class certification only when there has been clear need to do so — for example, in light of rapidly dwindling assets to fund any potential class settlement. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of interim class counsel here, however, is unsupported by any such need (see Dkt. No. 36). It is therefore DENIED without prejudice to a renewed motion setting forth more cogent reasons for why this case warrants an exception.
The deadline for plaintiff to move for class certification is continued from August 17 to SEPTEMBER 7 AT NOON. Otherwise, the parties' stipulated request for a further extension of time on said motion and to attempt private mediation (Dkt. No. 35), filed concurrently with plaintiff's motion for appointment of interim class counsel, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
