Filed: Apr. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 19, 2017
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . The parties settled this antitrust action on August 15, 2016, and announced such settlement in open court the following day. ( See generally Doc. 372.) Due to disputes raised by a subset of Plaintiffs referred to as the Boone Plaintiffs, 1 the Court ordered that the settlement proceeds remain in escrow until the resolution of all disagreements surrounding its allocation, including pending motions for sanctions and allegations of double-counted
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . The parties settled this antitrust action on August 15, 2016, and announced such settlement in open court the following day. ( See generally Doc. 372.) Due to disputes raised by a subset of Plaintiffs referred to as the Boone Plaintiffs, 1 the Court ordered that the settlement proceeds remain in escrow until the resolution of all disagreements surrounding its allocation, including pending motions for sanctions and allegations of double-counted d..
More
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.
The parties settled this antitrust action on August 15, 2016, and announced such settlement in open court the following day. (See generally Doc. 372.) Due to disputes raised by a subset of Plaintiffs referred to as the Boone Plaintiffs,1 the Court ordered that the settlement proceeds remain in escrow until the resolution of all disagreements surrounding its allocation, including pending motions for sanctions and allegations of double-counted damages. (Id. at 15-16.) Presently, the Omni Plaintiffs2 move for distribution of the portion of settlement proceeds "for which there is no reasonable basis to dispute."3 (Doc. 380 ("Motion").) In support, the Omni Plaintiffs attached an Interim Distribution Statement, which differentiates: (1) reasonably disputed amounts withheld from the requested distribution; and (2) the remaining amounts sought at the present time. (Doc. 380-1.) These distinctions were also thoroughly discussed in the Motion.
In addition, the Motion sets out the measures taken by the Omni Plaintiffs to meaningfully confer with counsel for the Boone Plaintiffs, Mr. Adam Levine ("Mr. Levine"), about these amounts. (Doc. 380, pp. 2-7.) The Omni Plaintiffs represent that, despite being ordered by the Undersigned to do so (see Doc. 379, p. 3), Mr. Levine has not engaged in a substantive discussion about his objections to distribution (Doc. 380, pp. 2-7.)
As provided by the Local Rule 3.01(b), a party opposing a motion must file a response that includes a memorandum of legal authority within fourteen days of receiving service. Therefore, if Mr. Levine intended to oppose the Motion, he was required to file such response on or before Thursday, April 13, 2017. Having failed to do so, the Court will grant the motion as unopposed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Omni Plaintiffs' and Whatley Kallas, LLP's Motion to Compel Counsel for the Boone Plaintiffs to Meaningfully Meet and Confer, or, in the Alternative for an Order Authorizing Distribution of Settlement Proceeds for Which There is No Reasonable Basis to Dispute and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 380) is GRANTED.
2. Upon receipt of this Order, the escrow agent at the location where the pertinent settlement proceeds are held is AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED to immediately distribute the amounts set forth in the Interim Distribution Sheet (Doc. 380-1) to attorney Joe R. Whatley of the law firm of Whatley Kallas, LLP. The total amount to be distributed is $25,249,179.56.
3. Attorney Joe R. Whatley is DIRECTED to provide the Court with certification immediately upon:
a. Distribution of these amounts from the escrow agent; and
b. Distribution of these amounts to the ultimate recipients.
