Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-78
04-23-2014
Patricia S. Hoskins and Mary Jako, Clarence Rulong, William R. Standiford and Linda Standiford, and Lewis A. Aston and Cathy Aston, individually and as the representatives of The Class of All Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, v. AB Resources, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant.
Phillip T. Glyptis, Esq. Karen Kahle, Esq. Kristen Andrews Wilson, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson PLLC Counsel for Defendant Jonathan E. Turak, Esq. Gold, Khourey & Turak Counsel for Plaintiffs Daniel J. Guida, Esq. Guida Law Offices Counsel for Plaintiffs Eric Gordon, Esq. Berry Kessler Crutchfield Taylor & Gordon Counsel for Plaintiffs
Honorable John Preston Bailey
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Came the plaintiffs in this putative class action on January 6, 2014, jointly with the defendant AB Resources, LLC, and moved this Court to express its willingness to grant their joint motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for the limited purpose of considering the parties' joint motion for conditional certification of a settlement class and preliminary approval of a class action settlement [Doc. 37]. Thereafter, following a status conference in this Court to discuss the pending Rule 60(b) motion held on January 23, 2014, the plaintiffs conceded that taking into account the allegations of the complaint as a whole, their good faith settlement demands, and the ultimate total settlement value of the case including the release of claims, the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. The Court understands that the issue of subject matter jurisdiction rests in the Fourth Circuit and that this Court's acceptance of jurisdiction for the limited purpose of granting relief from judgment to determine whether the parties' class action settlement should be approved would "preserve[] judicial resources and eliminate[] unnecessary expense and delay, and therefore is surely in 'aid of the appeal'" in accordance with Fobian v. Storage Technology Corp., 164 F.3d 997, 890 (4th Cir. 1999). With these principles in mind, on February 26, 2014, this Court entered a Memorandum Order affirmatively stating that it is inclined to grant the joint motion for relief from judgment and further to consider the joint motion for conditional certification of a settlement class and preliminary approval of a class action settlement in the event that the Fourth Circuit determine that this Court may properly exercise jurisdiction over this matter and the Fourth Circuit remand the action for that purpose [Doc. 43].
The parties' filed a joint status report advising the Fourth Circuit of this Court's February 26th Memorandum Order on the same day it was entered [Doc. 74-1]. On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiffs further filed an unopposed motion for limited remand to this Court [Doc. 52-1]. By Order entered April 22, 2014, the Fourth Circuit granted the motion for limited remand for the express purpose of allowing this Court to grant the Rule 60(b) motion and consider the joint motion for conditional certification of a settlement class and preliminary approval of a class action settlement [Doc. 76].
Accordingly, upon consideration of the parties' Rule 60(b) motion, the memorandum in support thereof, and the exhibits thereto, this Court finds good cause and hereby GRANTS the motion and relief from judgment. The Court further VACATES its sealed memorandum opinion and order granting plaintiffs motion to remand entered on October 17, 2012 [Doc. 28].
The parties are DIRECTED to file a joint motion for approval of a settlement notice together with a settlement notice form within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to file the joint motion for conditional certification of settlement class and preliminary approval of settlement previously submitted by the parties [Doc. 37-1].
__________
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
__________
Phillip T. Glyptis, Esq.
Karen Kahle, Esq.
Kristen Andrews Wilson, Esq.
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC
Counsel for Defendant
__________
Jonathan E. Turak, Esq.
Gold, Khourey & Turak
Counsel for Plaintiffs
__________
Daniel J. Guida, Esq.
Guida Law Offices
Counsel for Plaintiffs
__________
Eric Gordon, Esq.
Berry Kessler Crutchfield Taylor & Gordon
Counsel for Plaintiffs