Charles W. Cooley v. Indian River Transport Co.
Plaintiff: Charles W. Cooley
Respondent: Indian River Transport Co.
Case Number: 1:2018cv00491
Filed: April 11, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Fresno Office
County: Stanislaus
Presiding Judge: Barbara A. McAuliffe
Presiding Judge: William B. Shubb
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 10, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 79 ORDER and MEMORANDUM by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 05/10/19 GRANTING 77 Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A.)
February 13, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 74 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 2/12/19 MODIFYING the 71 Order as follows: Defendant will pay 30% of the settlement amount ($420,000) within 10 days. Defendant will pay the remaining 70% of the settlement amount ($980,000) by 9/15/19. Any portion of the settlement amount that is not paid within 10 days will accrue simple interest at an annual rate of 10%. The interest accrued on the settlement amount will be due by 9/15/19. If Defendant misses any payment of the settlement amount as set forth above, the total outstanding settlement amount will be due immediately and Plaintiffs may request judgment be entered against Defendant. (Coll, A)
January 24, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 71 ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/24/2019 re 67 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement: IT IS ORDERED that 67 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Certification of a Conditional Settlement Class and Pre liminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. A Final Fairness Hearing shall be held before this court on Monday, 5/6/2019 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb to determine wh ether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by this court; to determine whether the settlement class's claims should be dismissed with prejudice and judgment entered upon final approval of the settlemen t; to determine whether final class certification is appropriate; and to consider class counsel's applications for attorney's fees, costs, and an incentive award to plaintiff. The court may continue the final fairness hearing without further notice to the members of the class. [See document for further details.] (Kirksey Smith, K) (Main Document 71 replaced on 1/24/2019) (Kirksey Smith, K).
July 31, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 59 STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 7/31/2018 ORDERING The parties shall engage in private mediation within the next 60 days. All deadlines shall be postponed until after mediation is completed. If the partie s are unable to settle the case, they will return for a further Status Conference on 10/9/2018 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. Discovery and motion deadlines will be set date at that point, if necessary. (Washington, S)
June 8, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 54 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 06/07/18 GRANTING plaintiff Charles Cooley LEAVE TO AMEND to file his First Amended Complaint; defendant's responsive pleading is due 30 days after the First Amended Complaint is filed. The Amended Complaint (attached to 53 Proposed Stipulation and Order) is DEEMED filed as of the date of this Order. (Benson, A.)
April 27, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 52 STIPULATION and ORDER 51 signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 4/27/2018 continuing the Scheduling Conference to 7/30/2018 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. A joint status report shall be filed no later than 7/16/2018, and the parties shall adhere to the court's orders as outlined in the 49 Order Re Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference issued 4/20/2018. (Kirksey Smith, K)
April 20, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 47 ORDER RELATING CASES signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 4/20/18, ORDERING that the actions denominated Shook v. Indian River Transport Co., No. 1:14-CV-1415 WBS BAM, and Cooley v. Indian River Transport Co., No. 1:18-CV-491 DAD SAB are deemed related. The case denominated Cooley v. Indian River Transport Co., No. 1:18-CV-491 DAD SAB, is REASSIGNED to the Honorable William B. Shubb. Any dates currently set in the reassigned case only are hereby VACATED. The captions on documents filed in the reassigned case shall be shown as Cooley v. Indian River Transport Co., No. 1:18-CV-491 WBS BAM. (Kastilahn, A)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Charles W. Cooley v. Indian River Transport Co.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Charles W. Cooley
Represented By: Maria Adrianne De Castro
Represented By: Aashish Y. Desai
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Indian River Transport Co.
Represented By: Alexandra Hemenway
Represented By: Richard H Rahm
Represented By: Britney Noelle Torres
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?