ALDER v. COUNTY OF YOLO, 16-cv-01682-VC. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20171121a40
Visitors: 13
Filed: Nov. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2017
Summary: ORDER VACATING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES; REQUESTING MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . In light of the parties' stipulation and notice of settlement, the previously scheduled dates for the pretrial conference and trial are vacated. Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to file a motion for settlement approval by December 4, 2017 explaining in detail why the settlement agreement is "a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute." Slezak v. City of
Summary: ORDER VACATING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES; REQUESTING MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . In light of the parties' stipulation and notice of settlement, the previously scheduled dates for the pretrial conference and trial are vacated. Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to file a motion for settlement approval by December 4, 2017 explaining in detail why the settlement agreement is "a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute." Slezak v. City of ..
More
ORDER VACATING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES; REQUESTING MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL
VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.
In light of the parties' stipulation and notice of settlement, the previously scheduled dates for the pretrial conference and trial are vacated. Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to file a motion for settlement approval by December 4, 2017 explaining in detail why the settlement agreement is "a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute." Slezak v. City of Palo Alto, No. 16-CV-03224-LHK, 2017 WL 2688224, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2017) (quoting Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354-55 (11th Cir. 1982)); see also Beidleman v. City of Modesto, No. 116CV01100DADSKO, 2017 WL 5257087, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2017); Mar v. Genuine Parts Co., No. 2:15-CV-01405-MCE-AC, 2017 WL 1495098, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2017). To evaluate whether the settlement meets this standard, the motion must discuss, at least, the strength of the plaintiffs' FLSA claims and why plaintiffs' counsel's requested fee award is reasonable in light of the settlement amount. If, after reviewing the motion, the Court determines a hearing is required, it will schedule one.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
