UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 9, 2011
SHAWN BLOUIN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Maria-Elena James 17 17 17 Chief Magistrate United States District Court Judge
STIPULATION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
Date Action Filed: September 17, 2008
Date Removed: October 17, 2008
Trial Date: None
("Plaintiff") and Defendant Comcast Corp. ("Defendant"), based upon the 4 following facts, as well as the concurrently-filed Declarations Eric Springer of 5
1. On January 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and noticed a hearing date of March 10, 2011.
James, advised that if the parties agree to the terms of the settlement and believe a 10 10 10 hearing is unnecessary the Court prefers for the parties to enter into stipulations for 11 11 11 both preliminary and final approval, in lieu of briefing and setting a hearing date.
Action Release on January 20, 2011, and both parties are in agreement as to the 14 14 14 terms of the settlement as set forth therein. The Joint Stipulation of Settlement and 15 15 15
4. On February 3, 2011, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement under the terms set forth in the Joint Stipulation of
5. Both parties agree that final approval of this settlement as set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Class Action should be granted, as the 21 21 21 settlement terms are fair, reasonable and adequate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and the class reaction has been positive in that (1) there are no 23 23 23 known objections, (2) there is only one known opt-out, and (3) well over 60% of 24 24 24 the available work weeks have been claimed by class members.
fees, costs and class representative enhancement award is unnecessary, given that
This Stipulation is entered into by and between Plaintiff Shawn Blouin Simpluris, Inc. and H. Scott Leviant:
2. On February 1, 2011, Chris Nathan, Law Clerk to Hon. Marie-Elena
3. The parties fully executed the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Class Spiro Moss llp
Class Action executed by the parties is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 1
Settlement and Class Action. 19 19 19
6. Both parties believe that a hearing regarding final approval is
7. Both parties believe that a hearing regarding an award of
the class has had ample opportunity to access Plaintiff's Motion for
Fees, Costs and
Enhancement Award, and object to those requested awards but did not do
Based on the foregoing, the parties stipulate as follows:
1. The parties' Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release should be finally approved; 6
2. The Court should enter the [Proposed] Order for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, submitted concurrently herewith; and
3. The Court should enter the [Proposed] Order for and Award of Attorney's Fees, Costs and Enhancement Award, filed with the Court on or about March 3, 2011.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Spiro Moss llp Dated: June 8, 2011 SPIRO MOSS LLP By: Ira Spiro H H. Scott Leviant*fn1 Linh Hua Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: June 8, 2011 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP By: /s/ Theresa Mak, by permission Daryl S. Landy Theresa Mak Attorneys for Defendant
The parties in the above-captioned case entered into a Stipulation for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement. After considering the Stipulation, the facts 4 upon which the Stipulation is based, and good cause appearing, it is hereby 5
1. The parties' Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and
attached hereto as Exhibit 1, is finally approved; 8
2. The Order for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement,
concurrently with the filing of the Stipulation, is entered; and 10
3. The [Proposed] Order for and Award of Attorney's Fees, Costs and Enhancement Award, filed with the Court on or about March 1, 2011, is entered.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Spiro Moss llp