Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Santiago Rojas, et al v. Marko Zaninovich

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 29, 2013

SANTIAGO ROJAS, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MARKO ZANINOVICH, INC. AND SUNVIEW VINEYARDS OF CALFORNIA, INC. ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER

On March 29, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a proposed notice for approval by the Court. (Doc. 213 at 10). Plaintiffs filed this proposed notice on April 18, 2013. (Doc. 214). Defendant Sunview Vineyards of California filed several objections to the notice on April 26, 2013. (Doc. 216).

Defendant asserts "information in the proposed Notice is misleading, irrelevant and/or inconsistent with the Court's class certification order." Id. at 2. Defendant contends the dates proposed by Plaintiffs fail to provide "sufficient time" for Defendant to provide contact information to the claims administrator. Id. Also, Defendant objects to the use of V3 Corporation as the claims administrator, because "Plaintiffs have provided no evidence that V3 Corporation is a credible and legitimate class action claims administrator, and other well-respected alternatives exist." Id. Further, Defendant objects the notice should not be posted at Sunview because mailing serves as sufficient notice, and any Spanish translation should be prepared by a court-certified interpreter. Id. at 3. Notably, the parties have not met and conferred regarding the issues identified concerning the contents of the proposed 2 notice. In the interest of judicial economy, the parties shall attempt to resolve these issues without the 3 involvement of the Court. 4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The parties SHALL meet and confer regarding the issues identified by Defendant in its objections to the Proposed Notice no later than May 10, 2013;

2. Plaintiffs SHALL file an amended proposed notice on or before May 17, 2013; and

3. Any objections to the amended notice SHALL be filed on or before May 24, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130429

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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