Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
OJSC Rusnano
-
Order | Filed: July 18, 2017 | Entered: July 18, 2017 NEAS Limited v. OJSC Rusnano et al
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization | California Northern
Order on Stipulation
Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 115 Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice. (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2017)
-
Motion | Filed: July 17, 2017 | Entered: July 17, 2017 NEAS Limited v. OJSC Rusnano et al
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization | California Northern
Stipulation and Proposed Order
STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER and Joint Status Report filed by Neas Limited. (Goldin, Ely) (Filed on 7/17/2017)
-
Order | Filed: July 16, 2017 | Entered: July 16, 2017 NEAS Limited v. OJSC Rusnano et al
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization | California Northern
Order ~Util - Set Hearings 1 - Terminate Hearings
ORDER Status Conference set for 7/27/2017 11:00 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco.
The court previously approved the unopposed notice plan that the plaintiffs proposed. (See ECF Nos. 109, 111.) The amended certificate of service shows a service dates of June 8 and June 12, 2017, which means that the 21 days for objections ran on July 3, 2017. (SeeECF No. 113.) The court received no objections.
The next step is the parties' stipulated dismissal, filed at ECF No. 110. The court previously set a status date on July 20, 2017, at 11 a.m., to avoid losing track of the case. The parties filed no status update, which is fine, but now the court has a scheduling conflict and continues the status hearing to July 27, 2017, at 11 a.m. The court asks for a short update by July 20, 2017, about any procedural next steps for the final fairness determination. The court appreciates that the motion for preliminary approval sets out sufficiently the legal landscape of the parties' contemplated dismissal (given the jurisdictional issue), and that it may be that the parties assumed that the court can now approve the amended stipulated dismissal at ECF No. 110. But given that the parties previously amended their stipulated dismissal at ECF No. 109-1 and replaced it with ECF No. 110, and given that in ECF No. 109, the parties said that they only "tentatively agreed on a form of Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice" (referring to the earlier version of the dismissal at ECF No. 109-1), the court asks for the update, including the parties' views on whether the court can now enter the stipulated dismissal at ECF No. 110.
(Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 7/16/2017)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login