MAUDER v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, 10-cv-03118-SBA. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20150121696
Visitors: 20
Filed: Jan. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 20, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO AMEND RESTITUTION SETTLEMENT CLASS LIST SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG, District Judge. The parties, plaintiffs Mauder and Alice Chao, Deogeneso and Glorina Palugod, and Maritza Pinel, and Defendant Aurora Loan Services LLC, hereby stipulate and request the Court amend the Restitution Settlement Class List to include two additional Class members. These Class members recently provided further documentation to establish their class membership. Attached as Exhibit
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO AMEND RESTITUTION SETTLEMENT CLASS LIST SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG, District Judge. The parties, plaintiffs Mauder and Alice Chao, Deogeneso and Glorina Palugod, and Maritza Pinel, and Defendant Aurora Loan Services LLC, hereby stipulate and request the Court amend the Restitution Settlement Class List to include two additional Class members. These Class members recently provided further documentation to establish their class membership. Attached as Exhibit A..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO AMEND RESTITUTION SETTLEMENT CLASS LIST
SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG, District Judge.
The parties, plaintiffs Mauder and Alice Chao, Deogeneso and Glorina Palugod, and Maritza Pinel, and Defendant Aurora Loan Services LLC, hereby stipulate and request the Court amend the Restitution Settlement Class List to include two additional Class members. These Class members recently provided further documentation to establish their class membership. Attached as Exhibit A and filed under seal pursuant to the Court's Order dated January 13, 2015 (Dkt. No. 255) is the amended Restitution Settlement Class List.
As indicated in the Errata to the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Dkt. No. 250), the parties disagree as to the status of two Class members who did not timely opt out: Aurora maintains that the amended Restitution Class List, as well as the originally-filed Rosenthal Class List, improperly exclude those two Class members. Plaintiff maintains the Class Lists are correct as amended.
Source: Leagle
