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.

Enosh Baker, et al v. the Regents of the University of California

October 4, 2012

ENOSH BAKER, ET AL., ,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DEFENDANT.



SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, CERTIFYING THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, APPROVING CLASS NOTICE AND SCHEDULING FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

The Court having reviewed and considered the Joint Application for Preliminary Approval of Settlement ("Joint Application"), filed on September 26, 2012, by Plaintiffs Enosh Baker, David Buscho, Alyson Cook, Adam Fetterman, Sarena Grossjan, Deanna Johnson, Sophia Kamran, Elizabeth Lara, Ian Lee, Soo Lee, Evan Loker, Thomas Matzat, Darren Newell, Charles Parker, William Roberts, Fatima Sbeih, Evka Whaley-Mayda, Kase Wheatley, Edward Geoffrey Wildanger, Noah Wiley, and Jordan Wilheim (collectively "Plaintiffs"); and Defendant The Regents of the University of California (the "Regents") (all collectively the "Parties"), and having reviewed and considered the terms and conditions for the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") as set forth in the Stipulation for Settlement dated September 26, 2012, a copy of which has been submitted as Exhibit A to the Joint Application, and on the basis of such submissions, together with any other submissions in support of the Joint Application, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. The terms of the Settlement are preliminarily approved, subject to further consideration at the Final Approval Hearing provided for below. The Court concludes that the Settlement is sufficiently within the range of reasonableness to warrant the preliminary certification of the proposed class described in the Stipulation for Settlement, the scheduling of a hearing for final approval of the settlement, and the circulation of the notice to the putative class members, each as provided for in this order. PRELIMINARY CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS

2. For purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the action titled Baker, et al. v. The Regents of the University of California, 7 Case No. 12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB, is preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the 8 following persons (collectively, the "Class" and each of the Class a "Class Member"): 9

All persons who were arrested or directly sprayed with pepper spray by police officers working for or on the behalf of the University of California, Davis Police Department on November 18, 2011, on the area known as "the Quad," on the University of California, Davis campus.

3. Plaintiffs Enosh Baker, David Buscho, Alyson Cook, Adam Fetterman, Sarena Grossjan, Deanna Johnson, Sophia Kamran, Elizabeth Lara, Ian Lee, Soo Lee, Evan Loker, Thomas Matzat, Darren Newell, Charles Parker, William Roberts, Fatima Sbeih, Evka WhaleyMayda, Kase Wheatley, Edward Geoffrey Wildanger, Noah Wiley, and Jordan Wilheim (hereinafter "Representative Plaintiffs") are appointed as representatives of the Class.

4. Mark Merin of the Law Office of Mark E. Merin, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California ("ACLU"), and Meredith Wallis are appointed and designated as counsel for the Class.

5. This certification of the Class, appointment of the Representative Plaintiffs and appointment and designation of Class Counsel are solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlement. If the Stipulation for Settlement is terminated or is not consummated for any reason, the foregoing certification of the Class, appointment of the Representative Plaintiffs and designation of Class Counsel shall be void and of no effect and the Parties to the Stipulation for Settlement shall be returned to the status each occupied before entry of this order without prejudice to any legal argument that any of the Parties to the Stipulation for Settlement might have asserted but for the Stipulation for Settlement.

1 6. Based on the Court's review of the Joint Application and supporting materials, the 2 Court preliminarily finds that the proposed Class satisfies Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).

FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

7. A hearing shall be held in Courtroom 6, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, at 9:30 a.m. on January 9, 2013, to consider whether the settlement should 6 be given final approval. 7

8. Objections by class members who do not timely elect to exclude themselves from 8 the class to the proposed settlement should be considered if filed in writing with the clerk on or 9 before November 13, 2012.

9. At the hearing, class members who do not timely elect to exclude themselves from the class may be heard orally in support of or in opposition to the settlement, provided such persons file with the clerk by November 13, 2012 a written notification of the desire to appear personally, indicating (if in opposition to the settlement) briefly the nature of the objection.

10. Counsel for the Class and for the Defendant should be prepared at the hearing to respond to objections filed by such class members and to provide other information, as appropriate, bearing ...


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.