Case5:10-cv RMW Document207 Filed03/11/14 Page1 of 7

Similar documents
Case 3:13-cv HSG Document 133 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 5

Case4:09-cv CW Document69 Filed01/06/12 Page1 of 5

Case 5:05-cv RMW Document 97 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:14-cv PGS-LHG Document 130 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 4283

Case 4:13-cv YGR Document 126 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 4:16-cv CW Document 75-4 Filed 08/14/18 Page 1 of 7

Case 5:12-cv SOH Document 457 Filed 04/08/19 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 12296

Plaintiff, Defendant. for Denbury Resources, Inc. ("Denbury" or "Defendant") shares pursuant to the merger of

Case 3:14-cv SI Document 240 Filed 11/21/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

Case3:11-cv EMC Document70 Filed03/06/14 Page1 of 43

Case 1:15-cv WHP Document 148 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case Case 1:10-cv AKH Document Document Filed 03/16/15 03/13/15 Page 11of9

Case 1:14-cv JBW-LB Document 116 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: CV-1 199

Case 4:10-cv YGR Document Filed 06/17/16 Page 1 of 11

Case 4:06-cv CW Document 81 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 1 of 10

Case 2:14-cv RJS Document 67 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, AT INDEPENDENCE

Case 9:14-cv WPD Document 251 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2017 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

1,=-= := usns son~ 1,.!oocume?~t " LEl'TRONICALLY fl.led i!

Case 4:15-cv JSW Document 98 Filed 04/25/18 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

[PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CLAIMS

Case 4:10-cv YGR Document Filed 06/17/16 Page 8 of 156

Case 7:15-cv AT-LMS Document 129 Filed 05/04/18 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 5:08-cv EJD Document Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case 2:15-cv LDD Document 54 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CLASS ACTION

4:12-cv GAD-DRG Doc # Filed 09/21/15 Pg 1 of 82 Pg ID 4165 EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:14-cv RNS Document 191 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/29/2017 Page 1 of 5. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

GRANTED WITH MODIFICATIONS

Case 3:15-cv VAB Document 46 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 52

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLfEAS p H. D H lit ui Item 4u.i CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

Case 2:14-cv JCC Document 98 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

1631 Zimmerman Trail 319 Maverick St. Billings, MT San Antonio, TX T: (406) T: (210) F: (406) F: (210)

Case 2:07-cv RAJ Document 87 Filed 03/27/2009 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IOC SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YOR. This matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to this Court's Order Granting

[QIJ$&J ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND

Case 3:11-md DMS-RBB Document 108 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:15-cv RBL Document 214 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 8

Currently before the Court for preliminary approval is a settlement (the


Case 4:10-cv CW Document 730 Filed 12/05/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Case: 1: 1 0-cv Document #: 77 Filed: 03/22/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:569

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 169 Filed: 12/01/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:2786

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OFPENNSVLVAJ'ELA ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 0:11-cv CMA Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2015 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:16-cv TSE-TCB Document 114 Filed 10/06/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 1372

Case 1:12-cv GBD Document 47 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

Case 3:13-cv HSG Document Filed 03/17/16 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 58 Filed: 11/10/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:314

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 576 Filed: 07/06/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:22601

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 117 Filed: 08/12/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:706

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff,

Case 2:16-cv ADS-AKT Document 24 Filed 06/23/17 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 161

Case: 4:16-cv JAR Doc. #: 97 Filed: 12/13/18 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #: 2279

Case 1:10-cv ER-SRF Document 844 Filed 11/19/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 2:06-cv R-CW Document 437 Filed 10/12/12 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:7705

Case 2:16-cv RSL Document 82 Filed 12/20/18 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRADY COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHARON COBB, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,,

Case 5:13-cv ATB Document 67 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 5:15-md LHK Document 946 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 7:13-cv NSR-LMS Document 132 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION. Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:16-CV MHC

8:16-cv JFB-FG3 Doc # 168 Filed: 04/13/17 Page 1 of 12 - Page ID # 2440 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

Case 3:14-cv TJC-JBT Document 173 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID 6189

Case 1:12-cv VEC Document 186 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 11. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x

Case4:13-cv YGR Document104 Filed05/12/15 Page1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. 1. I am a member of the law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

Case 1:15-cv JFK Document 114 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 12 Case 1:15-cv JFK Document Filed 10/30/18 Page 2 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. TJ H Case No. 5:15-cv ~jc~-gjs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) SCHEDULING ORDER. Pharmaceuticals Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CLASS SETTLEMENT, DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE OF CLASS NOTICE AND SCHEDULING A FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

Case3:10-cv SI Document135 Filed07/11/12 Page1 of 6

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 266 Filed: 10/05/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:5588

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Judge:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. Plaintiff, j Judge: Hon. Joan M. Lewis ) ) )

Case5:10-cv JF Document107 Filed01/12/12 Page1 of 7

PLAINTIFF S EXHIBIT 1

LEGAL NOTICE BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

nm OPOREPJYINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Case 1:09-cv SAS Document 59-1 Filed 06/28/11 Page 1 of 9 EXHIBIT A

Transcription:

Case:0-cv-0-RMW Document0 Filed0// Page of Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. ) Roger N. Heller (State Bar No. ) LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Battery Street, th Floor San Francisco, CA - Telephone: () -000 Facsimile: () -00 Class Counsel 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 0 In Re Apple and AT&T ipad Unlimited Data Plan Litigation ALL CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS Case No. :0-cv-0 RMW [] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER REGARDING ATTM SETTLEMENT 0.

Case:0-cv-0-RMW Document0 Filed0// Page of 0 0 0. This matter came on for hearing on February, 0. The Court has considered the Stipulation of Settlement ( Agreement ) entered into by and among defendant AT&T Mobility LLC ( ATTM ), plaintiff Joe Hanna, as an individual and as Class Representative (collectively the Parties in the above-referenced Action ), together with all exhibits thereto, all oral and/or written objections and comments received regarding the Agreement, the arguments and authorities presented by the Parties and their counsel, and the record in the Action, and good cause appearing, Agreement. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:. All terms and definitions used herein have the same meanings as set forth in the. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action, the Class Representative, the ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class Members, and ATTM, and venue is proper in this District.. The Court finds that the notice to the ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class of the pendency of this Action, this settlement, and Class Counsels application for attorneys fees and expenses, as provided for in the Agreement and by Order of this Court, has been implemented and constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances to all persons and entities within the definition of the ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class, and fully complied with all requirements, including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and due process.. The Court approves the settlement as set forth in the Agreement and finds that the settlement is in all respects fair, reasonable, adequate, and just to, and in the best interests of, the ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class Members.. The Court has specifically considered the factors relevant to class settlement approval (see, e.g., Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., F.d (th Cir. 00)) including, inter alia, the strength of Plaintiff s case; the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout trial; the relief provided for in the settlement; the extent of discovery completed and stage of the proceedings; the

Case:0-cv-0-RMW Document0 Filed0// Page of 0 0 experience and views of Class Counsel; and the reaction of the ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class Members to the proposed settlement (including the claims submitted and the small number of opt-out requests and objections) and upon consideration of such factors finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned.. The Court has also scrutinized the settlement and negotiation history for any signs of potential collusion (see, e.g., In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation, F.d (th Cir. 0)), and finds that the settlement is not the product of collusion. This finding is supported by, among other things: the fact that the settlement was negotiated by experienced, well-qualified counsel; the settlement provides substantial benefits to class members and such benefits are not disproportionate to the attorneys fees and expenses awarded to Class Counsel; the benefits provided to ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class Members are appropriate under the circumstances of this case; the parties began negotiating regarding attorneys fees and expenses only after reaching an agreement regarding the key deal terms; and the settlement was reached after ATTM filed numerous motions challenging the viability of Plaintiff s claims, both on an individual and class-wide basis.. The Court has reviewed the two settlement objections that were submitted in this case. Neither of the two objections was sent to the Clerk of the Court, and thus both objections are invalid and overruled on the ground that they did not comport with the procedural requirements for submitting settlement objections as required by this Court s Orders (Docket No.,, Docket No., ). Moreover, based on the statements in her objection and information subsequently provided by ATTM, one of the two objectors, Carolyn Hughes, is not a member of the ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class and thus lacks standing to object to the ATTM Settlement. Nevertheless, the Court has provisionally considered both objections and the arguments made therein, and finds that in any event both objections lack merit and fail to state a compelling basis for denying settlement approval. The objections are therefore overruled on that additional ground as well. 0.

Case:0-cv-0-RMW Document0 Filed0// Page of 0 0 0.. Pursuant to Rule (c), the ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class as finally certified shall be defined as follows: All persons in the United States who purchased or ordered an Apple ipad G on or before June, 00 but who did not sign up for or purchase an ATTM data plan for that ipad G at any time. Excluded from this Class are Apple; ATTM; any entity in which ATTM or Apple has a controlling interest; ATTM and Apple s directors and officers; Apple s employees; and ATTM and Apple s legal representatives, successors, and assigns. Excluded from the ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class are persons and entities who submitted timely and valid requests for exclusion pursuant to section V.K of the Agreement and this Court s September, 0 Preliminary Approval Order (Docket No. ), as determined by the Settlement Administrator. A list of persons and entities who validly and timely requested exclusion is on file with this Court at Docket No. -, Ex. A. 0. The Parties and the Settlement Administrator shall, in good faith, implement and administer the process of verifying, processing and honoring claims pursuant to the terms set forth in the Agreement.. In connection with this settlement, the Court adjudges that payment of attorneys fees and expenses as set forth in this paragraph is fair, reasonable and justified under the circumstances of this case given, inter alia, the relief achieved for the ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class Members, the time and effort devoted by Class Counsel, the complexity of the legal and factual issues involved, and the contingent nature of the fee. In addition, even under the standards set forth in U.S.C. and In re HP Inkjet Printer Litig., F.d (th Cir. 0), the attorneys fees pass muster. In connection with this settlement, the Court hereby orders that the following attorneys fees and expenses shall be paid to Class Counsel pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and as set forth in this paragraph: (a) Class Counsel is awarded $,. as reimbursement for their litigation expenses reasonably attributable to the claims against ATTM in this case, with such expense portion paid pursuant to the terms of the Agreement; and (b) Class Counsel is awarded attorneys fees to be calculated pursuant to the

Case:0-cv-0-RMW Document0 Filed0// Page of 0 0 following formula: one-third (/) of the total aggregate dollar value of Data Plan Benefits redeemed by ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class Members, up to a maximum attorneys fee award of $,0. for the ATTM Settlement (i.e., for a maximum total award of $0,000 for attorneys fees and expenses for the ATTM Settlement). Such attorneys fees portion shall be calculated, and paid by ATTM to Class Counsel, within thirty (0) days following the conclusion of the time period during which Data Plan Benefits may be redeemed. 0.. As of the Effective Date, the Class Representative and all ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class Members shall be forever barred from bringing or prosecuting, in any capacity, any action or proceeding that involves or asserts any of the Released Claims against any Released Person and shall conclusively be deemed to have released and forever discharged the Released Persons from all Released Claims.. The Class Representative and all ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class Members shall, as of the Effective Date, conclusively be deemed to have acknowledged that the Released Claims may include claims, rights, demands, causes of action, liabilities, or suits that are not known or suspected to exist as of the Effective Date. The Class Representative and all ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class Members nonetheless release all such Released Claims against the Released Persons. Further, as of the Effective Date, the Class Representative and all ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class Members shall be deemed to have waived any and all protections, rights and benefits of California Civil Code section and any comparable statutory or common law provision of any other jurisdiction.. The benefits and payments described in the Agreement are the only consideration, fees, and expenses ATTM or the Released Persons shall be obligated to give to the Class Representative, ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class Members, and Class Counsel in connection with the Agreement and the payment of attorneys fees and expenses.. All claims asserted against ATTM in the Action are settled and dismissed on the merits and with prejudice as to the Class Representative and all ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class Members. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Order does not dismiss any

Case:0-cv-0-RMW Document0 Filed0// Page of 0 0 claims that have been or may be asserted in the future by any persons or entities who have validly and timely requested exclusion from the ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class as provided for in section V.K of the Agreement.. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the claims asserted against ATTM in the Action, ATTM shall not claim and may not be awarded any costs, attorneys fees, or expenses. ATTM shall not sue the Class Representative, Class Counsel, or the Class Members for malicious prosecution or abuse of process based on the filing of the Action.. Without affecting the finality of the Judgment in any way, the Court reserves exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the Action, the Class Representative, the ATTM Non- Subscriber Settlement Class Members, and ATTM for the purposes of supervising the implementation, enforcement, construction, and interpretation of the Agreement, this Order, and the Judgment.. The Agreement and this Order are not admissions of liability or fault by ATTM or the Released Persons, or a finding of the validity of any claims in the Action or of any wrongdoing or violation of law by ATTM or the Released Persons. The Agreement and settlement are not a concession by the Parties, and to the extent permitted by law, neither this Judgment, nor any of its terms or provisions, nor any of the negotiations or proceedings connected with it, shall be offered as evidence or received in evidence in any pending or future civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding to establish any liability of, or admission by ATTM, the Released Persons, or any of them. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Order shall be interpreted to prohibit the use of this Order or the Judgment in a proceeding to consummate or enforce the Agreement or Judgment, or to defend against the assertion of Released Claims in any other proceeding, or as otherwise required by law. All other relief not expressly granted to the ATTM Non-Subscriber Settlement Class Members is denied. # 0.

Case:0-cv-0-RMW Document0 Filed0// Page of 0 #. Counsel for the Parties are hereby authorized to utilize all reasonable procedures in connection with the administration of the Agreement which are not materially inconsistent with either this Order or the terms of the Agreement. IT IS SO ORDERED Dated:, 0 THE HONORABLE RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge 0 0.