throbber
Case 5:16-cv-04955-LHK Document 361 Filed 11/12/20 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`STEPHEN HADLEY, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`KELLOGG SALES COMPANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 16-CV-04955-LHK
`
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT
`ENFORCEMENT AND RENEWED
`MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT
`APPROVAL
`
`Re: Dkt. Nos. 346, 347
`
`
`
`On November 12, 2020, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for settlement
`
`enforcement, ECF No. 346, and Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for settlement approval, ECF No. 347.
`
`During the hearing, Plaintiffs withdrew their motion for settlement enforcement. Thus, the Court
`
`DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for settlement enforcement as moot.
`
`In addition, during the hearing, the Court discussed with the parties Plaintiffs’ renewed
`
`motion for settlement approval. For the reasons stated on the record and in the Court’s February
`
`20, 2020 Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion for Preliminary Approval, ECF No. 339, the
`
`Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for settlement approval. As stated on
`
`the record, the parties have committed to curing the identified deficiencies and to filing a new
`
`Case No. 16-CV-04955-LHK
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT ENFORCEMENT AND RENEWED MOTION
`FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-04955-LHK Document 361 Filed 11/12/20 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement.
`
`Lastly, the Court continues the December 2, 2020 case management conference to
`
`December 9, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. In the parties’ December 2, 2020 joint case management statement,
`
`the parties shall indicate: (1) whether they request a referral to alternative dispute resolution
`
`(“ADR”), and if so, what form of ADR and with whom; and (2) when the parties expect to file a
`
`new motion for preliminary approval.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 12, 2020
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`LUCY H. KOH
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-CV-04955-LHK
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT ENFORCEMENT AND RENEWED MOTION
`FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket