Search anything: judges, parties, opposing counsel, motion types, legal issues
Craig G. Riemer
(Subscribe to View)
Track This Case
April 25, 2018
Riverside County, CA
Nov 30, 2017
Nov 02, 2017
Jul 26, 2017
Ibarra Vs Nissan North America Inc
Parker Vs Mercury Insurance
Martinez Vs Dennys Inc
Haacke Vs Banner Bank
Miles Vs Ryder Corp Construction & Design
Hinojoza Vs Sanchez
Conservatorship Of Lydia Cohen
Miller Vs Bj'S Restaurants, Inc
Garcia Vs Mercedes- Benz Usa, Llc
The motion for final approval is not granted. Counsel shall appear. Analysis: The Court had been prepared to grant the motion for final approval and to sign the “corrected proposed” order with the following modifications: The enhancements are reduced to $2,500 each. The attorney’s fees are reduced to $73,500. The attorney’s costs are reduced to $8,724.37. However, the plaintiff has now submitted a “second corrected proposed” order, which re-inserts language to the effect that the participating class members are bound by sections 5.01, 5.02, and 5.05 of the agreement. Unless the Agreement has been modified since the version attached to the declaration of Benowitz filed 3-7-18, section 5.02 requires the class members to covenant not to sue the defendants. (Pg. 22, ll. 3-4.) As pointed out in the tentative ruling of 4-4-18, that provision violates this Court’s CMO at section H.7. The attorney’s fees are reduced to reflect the multiple hearings required for both the motion for ........
Your alert tracking was succesfully added. We will email you
when new changes related to are available.
You can see and mange all your Tracking alerts under Alert Settings
Add to your subscription and access more dockets and more documents!
Your subscription was successfully upgraded
Please wait a moment while we load this page.