Kevin T. Knox v. Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited et al
| Kevin T. Knox |
| Liansheng Miao, Yiyu Wang and Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited |
| 2:2015cv04003 |
| May 28, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Christina A. Snyder |
| Michael R. Wilner |
| Securities/Commodities |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
149
ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Court finds prerequisites for class action have been satisfied. Settlement is approved. Complaint against defendant is dismissed with prejudice and without costs. Plaintiff's counsel awarde d $300,000.00 in attorney fees and $54,685.07 in reimbursement of costs and expenses, together with proportionate share of any interest earned on the settlement fund. Plaintiffs Noe and SaLvador Barocio and Cindy Conybear awarded 5000.00 each for a total of $15,000.00 for incentive fee award and reimbursement for lost time in connection of this action. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR OTHER SPECIFICS). (lc)
|
|
Filing
121
JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs Kevin Knox, Noe Barocio, Salvador Barocio, Cindy Conybear, and Bhimsain Mangla shall recover nothing from Defendant Yingli Green Energy Ho lding Company; 2. The individual claims of Plaintiff Kevin Knox, Noe Barocio, Salvador Barocio, Cindy Conybear, and Bhimsain Mangla against Defendant Yingli Green Energy Holding Company are dismissed on the merits and with prejudice; 3. The claims of the putative class members in both actions are dismissed without prejudice; 4. Defendants Liansheng Miao, Yiyu Wang, and Zongwei "Brian" Li are dismissed from both actions without prejudice; 5. Defendant Yingli Green Energy Holding Company shall recover its costs as evidenced by a Bill of Costs. IT IS SO ORDERED. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lom)
|
|
Filing
118
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS 108 AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE 110 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court further ORDERS Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, no later than August18, 2017, why the Court should not dismiss Defendants Liansheng Miao, Yiyu Wang,and Zongwei Brian Li without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to serve them with the complaint within the Rule 4(m) period. (lc). Modified on 8/15/2017 (lc).
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER GRANTING IN PART STIPULATION 59 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: (1) Plaintiffs shall file their consolidated Complaint on or before November20, 2015; (2) Yingli shall respond to the Complaint within 30 days of the filing of the consolidated Com plaint; (3) If Yingli files a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, then (i) Lead Plaintiffs shall serve and file their opposition papers within 28 days of such filing, and (ii) Yingli shall serve and file its reply papers within 14 days of Plaintiffs filing of their opposition papers. (lc)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER ON MOVANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE 48 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. It appears that Erodiades did indeed make several arguments for the first time in this reply brief, including that the Barocios' newly claimed losses were untimely and that Noe Barocio did not execute the original underlying certification. (ECF. no. 41 ) However, because the Barocios substantively responded to both of these points in their Motion to Strike, the Court declines to strike Erodiades' reply and will instead consider the Barocios' Motion as a sur-reply to Erodiades' reply. (lom) Modified on 10/7/2015 (lom).
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
