Opinion
12-4800 (PGS) (LHG) 12-4995 (PGS) (LHG) 12-5005 (PGS) (LHG) 12-5007 (PGS) (LHG) 12-5096 (PGS) (LHG) 12-5235 (PGS) (LHG) 12-5278 (PGS) (LHG) 12-5463 (PGS) (LHG) 12-6046 (PGS) (LHG) 12-6436 (PGS) (LHG) 12-7396
02-25-2013
RE: Telliho v. East Windsor & ATS Townsend v. Woodbridge and ATS Conrow v. Monroe Township and ATS Fitting v. Glassboro and ATS O'Brien v. Brick & ATS Darocha v. Linden and ATS Becker v. Pohatcong and ATS Pinto v. Linden & ATS Baran v. Rahway & ATS Pinto v. Roselle Park & ATS Husseyin v. Borough of Roselle Park & ATS
CHAMBERS OF
PETER G. SHERIDAN
TO: All Attorneys of Record FROM: Peter G. Sheridan, U.S.D.J.
Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement
As you know, I have reserved decision on the preliminary fairness evaluation of the parties' proposed class settlement. This includes a number of factors including but not limited to whether subjecting defendants to some form of remedial (injunctive) relief should be included. In order to assist in my deliberations, the Court believes a tutorial or informal presentation should occur, as follows:
Since the tutorial is part of settlement deliberations, any statements made during the tutorial or informal presentation are not admissible into evidence at trial. (Fed. Evid. R. 408)
1. An informal presentation on how ATS systems operates, functionally and financially (ATS has previously agreed to make such a presentation). The parties should confer on the presentation;
2. A discussion of any concerns and/or role of the New Jersey Department of Transportation and the municipalities;
3. An informal settlement conference with the parties including the municipalities;
4. A discussion about remedial or injunctive relief against the municipalities and/or ATS; and
5. Any other relevant matters the parties wish to discuss.
The Court will hold a hearing on this matter on March 11, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.