From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mahan v. Trex Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 18, 2013
Case No. CV 09-00670-JSW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. CV 09-00670-JSW

03-18-2013

DEAN MAHAN, GRETCHEN SILVERMAN, STEVEN MCKENNA, THOMAS SCHAUPPNER, MARJORIE ZACHWIEJA, JOHN FORCELLA, SHEILA SHAPIRO, SABRINA W. HASS and DR. LANNY W. HASS, AMY BIONDI-HUFFMAN, and BRIAN HATHAWAY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TREX COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Steve W. Berman ( pro hac vice ) Tyler S. Weaver ( pro hac vice ) Robert F. Lopez ( pro hac vice ) Attorneys for Select Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel for the Proposed Class K&L GATES LLP Patrick J. Perrone ( pro hac vice ) Todd L. Nunn ( pro hac vice ) Attorneys for Defendant Trex Company, Inc.


HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice)
Tyler S. Weaver (pro hac vice)
Robert F. Lopez (pro hac vice)
Attorneys for Select Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel
for the Proposed Class
K&L GATES LLP Patrick J. Perrone (pro hac vice)
Todd L. Nunn (pro hac vice)
Attorneys for Defendant Trex Company, Inc.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF

SETTLEMENT AND PAGE LIMIT

As the parties have advised, they have reached agreement on most terms of settlement of this matter on a proposed nationwide basis. With respect to the remaining few issues, the parties continue to work with plaintiffs' expert consultant and defendant's technical representatives, and otherwise with their mediator, to conclude these matters fully. Accordingly, the parties require a short extension of the current briefing schedule in order to resolve the remaining issues and to conclude the settlement documentation and briefing accordingly.

In light of the foregoing, the parties now stipulate to, and ask respectfully that the Court approve, the following revised schedule for a motion for preliminary approval of their settlement:

Motion for preliminary approval due: April 5, 2013;

Any opposition to the motion for preliminary approval due: No later than 14 days following the filing of the motion for preliminary approval, per Local Civil Rule 7-3(a);

Any reply to any opposition filed in response to the motion for preliminary approval due: No later than seven (7) days following the filing of any opposition, per Local Civil Rule 7-3(c).

Hearing on the motion for preliminary approval: May 10, 2013 at 9 a.m., or as otherwise set by the Court.

So that they may apprise the Court fully of all pertinent matters in the motion for preliminary approval, the parties also stipulate and ask that the page limit be increased from 15 pages to 25 pages for that motion.

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

By ______________________

Steve W. Berman

Tyler S. Weaver

Robert F. Lopez

Attorneys for Select Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel

for the Proposed Class

K&L GATES LLP

By ______________________

Patrick J. Perrone

Todd L. Nunn

Attorneys for Defendant Trex Company, Inc.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The foregoing Stipulation having been reviewed, and good cause appearing therefor, the requested revised schedule regarding the motion for preliminary approval of settlement is hereby ORDERED and approved. The parties shall notice the motion to be heard on an open date at least 35 days out.

In addition, the Court grants the parties' stipulated request for a 25-page limit for the motion for preliminary approval of settlement.

________________________

Honorable Jeffrey S. White

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Mahan v. Trex Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 18, 2013
Case No. CV 09-00670-JSW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2013)
Case details for

Mahan v. Trex Co.

Case Details

Full title:DEAN MAHAN, GRETCHEN SILVERMAN, STEVEN MCKENNA, THOMAS SCHAUPPNER…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 18, 2013

Citations

Case No. CV 09-00670-JSW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2013)