Rachel Cody v. SoulCycle, Inc.
||August 25, 2015
||US District Court for the Central District of California
||John E. McDermott
||George H. King
|Nature of Suit:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|October 3, 2017
JUDGMENT APPROVING CLASSACTION SETTLEMENT ANDDISMISSING THIS ACTION WITHPREJUDICE by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: Based on the number of members of the Settlement Class on the Class List and the number of timely and valid Opt-Out Forms submitted, the Settlement Amount is $6.99.2 million. Class Counsel shall be entitled to $1,790,000 in attorneys' fees, inclusive of costs. This amount is awarded separate and apart from th e Settlement Amount, and shall not be deducted from or reduce the Settlement Amount in any way. Plaintiffs Rachel Cody and Lindsey Knowles shall be entitled to incentive awards of $5,000 each. See document for details. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lom)
|January 31, 2017
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause, in writing, why the Court should grant the Application. The response shall be no more than seven pages and shall be submitted by February 6, 2017. The items shall remain under seal until the Court rules on the Application. If the Application is denied as to any item, the parties will have the opportunity to withdraw it. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jloz)
|June 21, 2016
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott re Stipulation for Protective Order 47 . [See Order for details.] (san)
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
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.
Why Is My Information Online?