Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

4EC Holdings, LLC v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson LLP, 3:14-cv-01944 VC. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150727600 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jul. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2015
Summary: STIPULATED ORDER CONCERNING PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT (DKT. NO. 73) AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . This stipulation is made between Plaintiff 4EC Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Plaintiff"), and Defendant Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson LLP, a Texas limited liability partnership ("Defendant") (collectively, "the Parties"), through their respective attorneys of record, and pertains to Plaintiff'
More

STIPULATED ORDER CONCERNING PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT (DKT. NO. 73) AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT

This stipulation is made between Plaintiff 4EC Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Plaintiff"), and Defendant Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson LLP, a Texas limited liability partnership ("Defendant") (collectively, "the Parties"), through their respective attorneys of record, and pertains to Plaintiff's pending Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement (the "Renewed Motion"), which is calendared for hearing before the Court on August 20, 2015.

THE PARTIES AGREE AND STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:

Following further good faith negotiations between the parties, the parties have agreed upon an Amended Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release (the "Amended Stipulation"). The Amended Stipulation, including its exhibits, is being filed with the Court concurrently with this stipulation. The Amended Stipulation supersedes all prior stipulations concerning the terms of the proposed Settlement of this action — specifically the stipulations filed with the Court on December 30, 2014; March 24, 2015 and July 10, 2015 (Dkts. 50, 65 & 76). Certain terms of the Amended Stipulation differ from those to which the parties had agreed as of the time that Plaintiff filed its Renewed Motion. In particular, the parties have eliminated the claims-made feature of the proposed Settlement and have streamlined the settlement administration process to substantially reduce administrative costs and eliminate the need for time-consuming and expensive claims processing. The Settlement Fund will now be $3.4 million, reflecting the non-contingent nature of the proposed Settlement. Under terms of the proposed Settlement, at least $2 million of that Settlement Fund will be available for distribution to the Settlement Class, and monies that go unclaimed by the Settlement Class and are not needed to pay costs of administration or any award of attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel are to be donated to charity. Terms of the Amended Stipulation will be addressed in greater detail in scheduled, upcoming briefing on the Renewed Motion.

Subject to the Court's approval, the parties ask that the Amended Stipulation, being filed concurrently with this Stipulation, now be considered as jointly proposed to the Court in the place and stead of the settlement terms that had been agreed-upon as of the time Plaintiff filed the Renewed Motion (as modified by the July 10, 2015 Stipulation), and that the Court consider Plaintiff's Renewed Motion as requesting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement as set forth in the Amended Stipulation. Defendant intends to file its papers supporting preliminary approval and addressing the Amended Stipulation as currently scheduled, on July 23, 2015. Plaintiff intends to file reply papers in further support of the Renewed Motion as currently scheduled, on July 30, 2015. The parties agree that the hearing on the Renewed Motion should proceed as scheduled, on the Court's regular law-and-motion calendar August 20, 2015.

IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED this 22nd DAY OF JULY.

PROPOSED ORDER AS MODIFIED

In light of these changes, the plaintiff must file a reply brief (which previously was optional). The reply brief must explain clearly how the terms of the stipulation have changed from when the plaintiff filed its opening brief in support of preliminary approval.

Pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties and upon good cause showing, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer