Preview
AE
San Francisco Superior Courts
Information Technology Group
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Mar-22-2007 5:31 pm
Case Number: CGC-05-443473
Filing Date: Mar-22-2007 5:30
Juke Box: 001 Image: 01717779
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
E 'CASEY' HAYHURST et al VS. BARCLAY GLOBAL INVESTORS USA INC., A CALIFORN
001001717779
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
VINCE “CASEY” HAYHURST and KARL CASE NO. CGC-05-443473
FRENCH, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
CLASS ACTION
Plaintiffs,
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF FINAL
vs. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
BARCLAYS GLOBAL INVESTORS USA
INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 Date: March 21, 2007
through 100, Inclusive, Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept: 504
Defendant. Judge: Hon. Mary E. Wiss
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT - CASE NO. CGC-05-443473n
0 Oo ID
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This matter came for hearing on March 21, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 504 of the
above-captioned court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement. The
Court, having considered the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release Between Plaintiff and
Defendant (“Settlement Agreement”) between KARL FRENCH and Defendant BARCLAYS
GLOBAL INVESTORS USA, INC., (“Defendant”), executed by the Parties, and having granted
preliminary approval of same and conditional certification for settlement purposes only
November 29, 2006, having entered an Order directing that the Notice of Pendency of Class
Action settlement be mailed to all members of the Settlement Class; having conducted a hearing
on whether the Settlement should be granted final approval on March 21, 2007, and good cause
appearing therefore,
HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, the Defendant,
and the Plaintiff;
2. The Court has determined that the Notice of Pendency of Class Action provided
to the Settlement Class pursuant to the Orders for Preliminary Approval Settlement, fully and
accurately informed all members of the Class of the material elements of the proposed
Settlement, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted
valid, due and sufficient notice to all Class Members;
3. The Court herby grants final approval of the Settlement as fair, reasonable and
adequate in all respects, determines that the Settlement was made in good faith and in the best
interests of the Parties, and orders the Parties to consummate the Settlement in accordance with
the terms of the Settlement Agreement;
4. Neither the Final Judgment nor the Settlement shall constitute an admission by
Defendants of any liability or wrongdoings whatsoever, nor is the Final Judgment a finding of
the validity or invalidity of any claims in the action or a finding of wrongdoing by Defendant
herein;
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT - CASE NO. CGC-05-4434735. The Court dismisses the Plaintiff's claims in the action with prejudice, with each
Party bearing their own costs, except as provided for in the Settlement Agreement and except as
provided in Paragraph 8 below;
6. The Court decrees that Plaintiff and the Settlement Class shall, after entry of Final
Judgment, be conclusively deemed to have released all Released Claims against Defendant as
alleged in this action and as more specifically provided in the Settlement Agreement;
7. The Court permanently bars and enjoins the Plaintiffs and members of the
Settlement Class, either directly or indirectly, from the assertion, institution, maintenance,
prosecution, or enforcement against Defendants from any of the Released Claims as alleged in
this action and more specifically set forth in the Settlement Agreement; and
8. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment in any way, the Court
reserves continuing jurisdiction over the action and the Parties for purposes of supervising the
implementation, enforcement, construction, administration and effectuation of the Settlement
Agreement. The Court also reserves continuing jurisdiction over the action and the Parties for
the purposes of determining the application for an award of attorney’s fees, costs, an
enhancement for plaintiff Karl French, and the fees of the claims administrator, now set for
further hearing on April 11, 2007 at 11:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
Dated: March 22, 2007
LEGAL_US_W # 55881290.2
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT - CASE NO. CGC-05-443473SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Francisco
VINCE “CASEY” HAYHURST, et al., Case Number: CGC-05-443473
Plaintiffs, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
vs. BY MAIL AND BY FAX
(CCP 1013a (4) )
BARCLAY GLOBAL INVESTORS USA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
I, Clark Banayad, a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San
Francisco, certify that I am not a party to the within action.
On March 22, 2007, I served the attached JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF FINAL
APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT filed on March 22, 2007, by placing a copy thereof in a
sealed envelope, addressed as follows:
Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq. M. Kirby C. Wilcox, Esq.
Isam C. Khoury, Esq. Laura B. Scher, Esq.
COHELAN & KHOURY PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY &
605 C Street, Suite 200 WALKER, LLP
San Diego, CA 92101-5305 55 Second Street, 24'" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-3441
and, I then placed the sealed envelopes in the outgoing mail at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco,
CA. 94102 on the date indicated above for collection, attachment of required prepaid postage, and
mailing on that date following standard court practices. I also faxed the document to the following:
a. Isam C. Khoury, Esq. at 619-595-3000
b. M. Kirby C. Wilcox, Esq. at 415-856-7100
Dated: March 22, 2007
GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
py Cdaek Granyad_
Clark Banayad, Deputy Clerk
Preview
AE San Francisco Superior Courts Information Technology Group Document Scanning Lead Sheet Mar-22-2007 5:31 pm Case Number: CGC-05-443473 Filing Date: Mar-22-2007 5:30 Juke Box: 001 Image: 01717779 JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT E 'CASEY' HAYHURST et al VS. BARCLAY GLOBAL INVESTORS USA INC., A CALIFORN 001001717779 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO VINCE “CASEY” HAYHURST and KARL CASE NO. CGC-05-443473 FRENCH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION Plaintiffs, JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF FINAL vs. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT BARCLAYS GLOBAL INVESTORS USA INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 Date: March 21, 2007 through 100, Inclusive, Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept: 504 Defendant. Judge: Hon. Mary E. Wiss JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT - CASE NO. CGC-05-443473n 0 Oo ID 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This matter came for hearing on March 21, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 504 of the above-captioned court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement. The Court, having considered the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release Between Plaintiff and Defendant (“Settlement Agreement”) between KARL FRENCH and Defendant BARCLAYS GLOBAL INVESTORS USA, INC., (“Defendant”), executed by the Parties, and having granted preliminary approval of same and conditional certification for settlement purposes only November 29, 2006, having entered an Order directing that the Notice of Pendency of Class Action settlement be mailed to all members of the Settlement Class; having conducted a hearing on whether the Settlement should be granted final approval on March 21, 2007, and good cause appearing therefore, HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff; 2. The Court has determined that the Notice of Pendency of Class Action provided to the Settlement Class pursuant to the Orders for Preliminary Approval Settlement, fully and accurately informed all members of the Class of the material elements of the proposed Settlement, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted valid, due and sufficient notice to all Class Members; 3. The Court herby grants final approval of the Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate in all respects, determines that the Settlement was made in good faith and in the best interests of the Parties, and orders the Parties to consummate the Settlement in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement; 4. Neither the Final Judgment nor the Settlement shall constitute an admission by Defendants of any liability or wrongdoings whatsoever, nor is the Final Judgment a finding of the validity or invalidity of any claims in the action or a finding of wrongdoing by Defendant herein; JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT - CASE NO. CGC-05-4434735. The Court dismisses the Plaintiff's claims in the action with prejudice, with each Party bearing their own costs, except as provided for in the Settlement Agreement and except as provided in Paragraph 8 below; 6. The Court decrees that Plaintiff and the Settlement Class shall, after entry of Final Judgment, be conclusively deemed to have released all Released Claims against Defendant as alleged in this action and as more specifically provided in the Settlement Agreement; 7. The Court permanently bars and enjoins the Plaintiffs and members of the Settlement Class, either directly or indirectly, from the assertion, institution, maintenance, prosecution, or enforcement against Defendants from any of the Released Claims as alleged in this action and more specifically set forth in the Settlement Agreement; and 8. Without affecting the finality of this Final Judgment in any way, the Court reserves continuing jurisdiction over the action and the Parties for purposes of supervising the implementation, enforcement, construction, administration and effectuation of the Settlement Agreement. The Court also reserves continuing jurisdiction over the action and the Parties for the purposes of determining the application for an award of attorney’s fees, costs, an enhancement for plaintiff Karl French, and the fees of the claims administrator, now set for further hearing on April 11, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED. Dated: March 22, 2007 LEGAL_US_W # 55881290.2 JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT - CASE NO. CGC-05-443473SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of San Francisco VINCE “CASEY” HAYHURST, et al., Case Number: CGC-05-443473 Plaintiffs, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE vs. BY MAIL AND BY FAX (CCP 1013a (4) ) BARCLAY GLOBAL INVESTORS USA, INC., et al., Defendants. I, Clark Banayad, a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, certify that I am not a party to the within action. On March 22, 2007, I served the attached JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT filed on March 22, 2007, by placing a copy thereof in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq. M. Kirby C. Wilcox, Esq. Isam C. Khoury, Esq. Laura B. Scher, Esq. COHELAN & KHOURY PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & 605 C Street, Suite 200 WALKER, LLP San Diego, CA 92101-5305 55 Second Street, 24'" Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 and, I then placed the sealed envelopes in the outgoing mail at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA. 94102 on the date indicated above for collection, attachment of required prepaid postage, and mailing on that date following standard court practices. I also faxed the document to the following: a. Isam C. Khoury, Esq. at 619-595-3000 b. M. Kirby C. Wilcox, Esq. at 415-856-7100 Dated: March 22, 2007 GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk py Cdaek Granyad_ Clark Banayad, Deputy Clerk