Staci Chester et al v. The TJX Companies, Inc. et al
| Staci Chester and Daniel Friedman |
| Does, TJ Maxx of CA, LLC and The TJX Companies, Inc. |
| 5:2015cv01437 |
| July 17, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| David T. Bristow |
| Dean D. Pregerson |
| Other Fraud |
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
129
ORDER AND JUDGMENT: (1) CONFIRMING CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS;(2) GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT (3) APPROVING CLASSREPRESENTATIVE ENHANCMENT PAYMENTS (4) AWARDING CLASS COUNSEL FEES AND COSTS (5) APPROVING SETTLEMENT ADMIN ISTRATOR FEES (6) ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFICS). JND is awarded $1,000,000 for their services as Settlement Administrator. Class Representatives Staci Chester, Daniel Friedman, Robin Berkoff and Theresa Metoyer are each awarded the sum of $7,500 as a Class Representative. Class Counsel is awarded $2,125,000, as attorneys' fees, and $35,497.97 as costs. By means of this Final Order and Judgment, this Court hereby enter s Final Judgment in this action, as defined in Rule 54, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. This action is dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees except as provided by the Settlement Agreementand this Final Order and Judgment.(MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc)
|
|
Filing
113
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS 112 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and conditionally certifies the Settlement Class. The hearing on the Motion is VACATED. A hearing on the final approval of the class action certification and settlement, as well as Class Counsels motion for fees and costs, shall be held on May 14, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. at the United States Courthouse, 350 West First Street, Courtroom 5D, Los Angeles, CA 90012. (lc), Modified on 12/6/2017. (lc).
|
|
Filing
111
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 109 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court is inclined to preliminarily approve the parties proposed Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 109-3), if the proposed notice w as amended to conform to the format addressed in this Order. For these reasons, Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED without prejudice. The Court directs the parties to submit a new Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, should they wish to do so, no later than November 13, 2017. (lc). Modified on 10/20/2017 .(lc).
|
|
Filing
69
SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: On November 15, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling order in this case. In addition to the dates listed in that order, the court requires that any motion for class certification filed by Mar ch 1, 2017. Further, any opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed by April 7, 2017, and any reply to the motion for class certification shall be filed by May 1, 2017. Depending on the outcome of the motion for class certification, the Court may choose at that time to amend the schedule. Lastly, discovery shall not be conducted in phases. (lc) Modified on 11/15/2016. (lc).
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS 36 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc). Modified on 8/18/2016 (lc).
|
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.
