Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gesberg v. Linkus Enterprises

March 27, 2009

ADAM GESBERG, KALEM SHISHIDO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
LINKUS ENTERPRISES, INC., AND DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

Presently before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement with Named Plaintiffs and Dismissal of Class Allegations. This Court hereby orders this action dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).*fn1

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Adam Gesberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, originally filed this action in Shasta County Superior Court on May 8, 2008. On September 29, 2008, Plaintiff, Kalem Shishido, joined the suit and Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). Thereafter, on October 13, 2008, Defendant removed the case to this Court.

Through the FAC, Plaintiffs seek compensation for, inter alia, Defendant's alleged failure to pay wages, including overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and failure to reimburse business expenses incurred. No class has yet been certified.

This instant case is related to the matter of Gabe Wright et al. v. LinkUs Enterprises, Inc., 2:07-cv-01347-MCE-CMK, a case filed on July 7, 2007, and encompassing the same proposed class and the same Defendant. A proposed settlement is currently pending in that action.

Accordingly, in light of the duplicity of current litigation, the named parties to the Gesberg suit now request the following:

1) Approval of a Settlement Agreement as to the named Plaintiffs;

2) Approval of the payment of attorneys' fees to Michael Cogan as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and as set forth in the Declaration of Michael Cogan in support thereof;

3) A finding that the Class will not be prejudiced by the dismissal of the class allegations;

4) A finding that the named Plaintiffs have not benefitted at the expense of the class;

5) A finding that this settlement is not subject to the notice requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e);

6) Dismissal of the entire action with prejudice as to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.