Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Zilveti v. Global Marketing Research Services, Inc., 4:2015-cv-02494-MMC. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20161202912 Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 01, 2016
Summary: JOINT STATUS REPORT AND ORDER THEREON MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . Plaintiff Nicole Zilveti ("Plaintiff" or Zilveti") and Defendant Global Marketing Research Services, Inc. ("Defendant" or "GMRS") hereby respectfully file this Joint Status Report in accordance with the Court's November 2, 2016 Order. (Dkt. 57.) The Parties state as follows: 1. The Parties reached a Stipulation of Settlement ("Settlement Agreement") in the related matter of Martin, et al. v. Global Marketing Resear
More

JOINT STATUS REPORT AND ORDER THEREON

Plaintiff Nicole Zilveti ("Plaintiff" or Zilveti") and Defendant Global Marketing Research Services, Inc. ("Defendant" or "GMRS") hereby respectfully file this Joint Status Report in accordance with the Court's November 2, 2016 Order. (Dkt. 57.) The Parties state as follows:

1. The Parties reached a Stipulation of Settlement ("Settlement Agreement") in the related matter of Martin, et al. v. Global Marketing Research Services, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-1290-ORL-31-KRS (M.D. FL) (the "Martin litigation"), which would resolve this California litigation, and submitted their proposed Settlement Agreement for approval by the court in the Martin litigation on March 18, 2016 (Martin Dkt. 97-1);

2. The Martin court issued its Order granting Preliminary Settlement Approval on March 29, 2016 (Martin Dkt. 98) and set the Final Approval Hearing for August 16, 2016;

3. On August 16, 2016, at the Final Approval Hearing in the Martin litigation, the Martin court heard argument regarding the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement Agreement and held an evidentiary hearing for the related matter of attorney's fees;

4. On November 4, 2016, the Martin court granted Final Approval of the Parties' settlement, with the caveat that the issue of attorneys' fees would be addressed in a separate order. (Martin Dkt. 139);

5. On November 30, 2016, the Martin court issued an Order resolving the attorneys' fees issue. (Martin Dkt. 140);

6. However, on November, 20, 2016, a pro se objector, attorney Patrick S. Sweeney, filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the Martin court's Order granting Final Approval. The Parties are presently working to address the appeal, which attorney Sweeney filed despite the fact he does not appear to have even been a member of the Settlement Class;

7. Once the appeal is resolved, the Parties will be able to file a stipulation of dismissal in this action.

8. As such, the Parties believe there is good cause to extend the stay of all litigation deadlines in this instant action, pending the result of Objector Sweeney's appeal, after which time the Parties shall file a stipulation to dismiss this case in its entirety.

WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that the Court extend the stay of all litigation deadlines in the instant action for an additional forty-five (45) days at which time the Parties shall file a further status report regarding the status of the appeal or a dismissal of this action in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Should the appeal be resolved prior to the expiration of the forty-five (45) days the Parties will file a dismissal promptly upon resolution of the appeal.

ATTESTATION

In compliance with Federal Rule 5, Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer of this document hereby attests that the concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatories thereto.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all litigation deadlines be stayed for forty-five (45) days, up to and including January 16, 2017, at which time the Parties shall file a further status report regarding the status of the related matter, Martin, et al. v. Global Marketing Research Services, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-1290-ORL-31-KRS (M.D. FL), or a dismissal of this action in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, if the Martin matter is resolved prior to the expiration of the forty-five (45) days, the Parties will promptly file a dismissal of this California action.

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