Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

James Coghlan, et al v. Sprint Communications Company L.P.

November 15, 2012

JAMES COGHLAN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert H. Cleland United States District Judge

ORDER AND JUDGMENT APPROVING CLASS-ACTION SETTLEMENT AND DIRECTING NOTICE OF FINAL APPROVAL

WHEREAS, the parties to the above-captioned class action (the "Action") entered into a Michigan Class Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement"), as of March 1, 2012, (terms capitalized herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Settlement Agreement); and

WHEREAS, Defendants and Plaintiffs in the Action moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b) for an order certifying the class for settlement purposes, and under Rule 23(e) for an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement of the Class Members' claims in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and approving the form and plan of notice as set forth in the Settlement Agreement;

WHEREAS, in its Order entered on April 27, 2012, (the "Preliminary Approval Order"), the court provisionally ordered that this Action may be settled as a class action on behalf of the following class:

A class (the "Settlement Class") defined as:

a class comprising all Persons who own or who claim to own, for any period of time during a Compensation Period, any Covered Property, provided, that "Settlement Class" or "Class" does not include: (1) Right-ofWay Providers and their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, past or present; (2) federal, state, and local governmental entities; (3) Native American nations and tribes; or (4) any Person who files a valid and timely exclusion on or before the Opt-Out Deadline. WHEREAS, the Preliminary Approval Order also approved the forms of notice of the Settlement to Class Members and directed that appropriate notice of the Settlement be given to Class Members;

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary Approval Order: (1) the Settlement Administrator caused to be mailed to Class Members the Notice of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Settlement Hearing ("Notice") on July 31, 2012, and caused to be published the Summary Notice of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Settlement Hearing ("Summary Notice"); (2) an Affidavit of Mailing and Publication of the Notice and Publication of the Summary Notice was filed with the court prior to this hearing; and (3) the Affidavit of Mailing and Publication filed with this court demonstrates compliance with the Preliminary Approval Order with respect to the Notice and the Summary Notice and, further, that the best notice practicable under the circumstances was, in fact, given;

WHEREAS, on November 5, 2012, this court held a hearing on whether the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Class (the "Fairness Hearing"); and

WHEREAS, based upon the foregoing, having heard the statements of counsel for the Parties and of such persons as chose to appear at the Fairness Hearing; having considered all of the files, records, and proceedings in the Action, the benefits to the Class under the Settlement Agreement, and the risks, complexity, expense, and probable duration of further litigation; and being fully advised in the premises,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:

1. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action, and personal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs, Class Members, and Defendants.

2. The Class Representatives and their counsel fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class Members in connection with the Settlement Agreement.

3. The Settlement Agreement is the product of good-faith, arm's-length negotiations by the Class Representatives and their counsel, and Settling Defendants and their counsel, and the representatives of the Settlement Class and Settling Defendants were represented by capable and experienced counsel.

4. The form, content, and method of dissemination of the notice given to Class Members, including both published notice and individual notice to all Class Members who could be identified through reasonable effort, were adequate and reasonable and constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances.

5. The Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of Class Members, and is approved in all respects, and the parties are directed to perform and satisfy the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement.

6. Class Members shall be permitted to make claims for the benefits described in the Settlement Agreement, subject to the conditions and limitations stated herein.

7. The certification of the Settlement Class, under Rules 23(b)(3) and 23(e), solely for settlement purposes, is hereby confirmed.

8. The notice, as given, complied with the requirements of Rule 23, satisfied the requirements of due process, and constituted due and sufficient ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.