Opinion
Case No. 04-cv-01030-WDM.
August 14, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before me on Plaintiff's Renewed Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement (doc. no. 66), which supplants Plaintiff's original motion (doc. no. 60). Upon review I find the motion and the parties' settlement fail to address certain requirements in connection with the class certification process attendant to a settlement as found in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(B). In particular, the pleadings do not adequately define the class claims, issues or defenses, nor do they request or justify the appointment of class counsel. These are matters which should be addressed in the preliminary approval order.
It is therefore ordered that the parties file on or before August 25, 2008, the following:
1. An appropriate pleading representing the parties' summary or definition of the class claims, issues or defenses pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(B); and
2. A request for appointment of counsel pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(B) and (g) which provides reasons why the designated counsel should be appointed and what the maximum amount of counsel's fee claim will be.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff's original motion (doc. no. 60) is denied as moot.