From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

TURO v. ORACLE CORP

United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
Mar 26, 2008
No. C 06-02846 SBA, [Docket No. 34] (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2008)

Opinion

No. C 06-02846 SBA, [Docket No. 34].

March 26, 2008


ORDER


Previously before the Court was the parties' Joint Motion for Order Provisionally Certifying Settlement Class and Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Proposed Notices to Class Members (the "Motion") [Docket No. 26], requesting the Court (1) preliminarily certify two sub-classes for purposes of settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b); (2) preliminarily certify a proposed collection of plaintiffs for notice and settlement under the Fair Labor and Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (the "FLSA"); and (3) preliminarily approve the parties' Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement Between Plaintiffs and Defendant; Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement") [Docket No. 25].

After reading and considering these papers, the Court was inclined to approve the Motion, subject to the parties addressing certain concerns as subsequently identified in the Court's Order dated March 10, 2008 [Docket No. 30]. After issuing this Order, the Court took a March 11, 2008 hearing regarding the Motion, off calendar, so the parties could address its concerns.

On March 18, 2008, the parties filed a Joint Response to Court's Order of March 10, 2008 [Docket No. 34]. This document consists of a proposed Notice to Class of Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"). See Docket No. 34, Ex. "A." The Notice references two other documents containing the "only complete statement of the terms of proposed settlement[,]" id. at 9:12-13, a Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement Between Plaintiffs and Defendant and a Settlement Agreement and Release, id. at 9:13-14. The parties did not file these other two documents nor have they indicated a time frame for doing so. The Court cannot rule on the parties' Motion without these two documents. Accordingly, the parties have seven days from the date of the entry of this order to file these two documents with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

TURO v. ORACLE CORP

United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
Mar 26, 2008
No. C 06-02846 SBA, [Docket No. 34] (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2008)
Case details for

TURO v. ORACLE CORP

Case Details

Full title:TURO, et. al., Plaintiff, v. ORACLE CORP., Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division

Date published: Mar 26, 2008

Citations

No. C 06-02846 SBA, [Docket No. 34] (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2008)