Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00336/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00336-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRET ROBERT OSBORN, MICHAEL

PRAFF, KATHLEEN ANN PRAFF, and

MARTY GAYLE OSBORN, on behalf of

themselves, the general public, and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

EMC CORPORATION, and Does 1 through

50,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-00336 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON APRIL 28, 2006: 

The Court tentatively GRANTS the parties’ joint motion for final approval of class

action settlement regarding “lease claims.” The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of

points and authorities and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in

those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are

ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance

of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional

authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, without argument

Case 3:04-cv-00336-JSW Document 148 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

2

or additional briefing. Cf. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral

argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

The parties shall have fifteen minutes to address the following questions: 

(1) Is there anyone present who objects to the proposed settlement or who has a dispute

regarding their share of the Net Settlement Amount?

(2) Have the parties or A.B. Data Class Action Support Services (“A.B. Data”) received any

objections or disputes regarding class members’ share of the settlement amount since

March 10, 2006, the date of the Declaration by Anya Verkhovskaya?

(3) Ms. Verkhovskaya states in her declaration that nine Notice Booklets were initially

returned to A.B. Data as undeliverable and that A.B Data conducted a search for these

class members’ addresses and subsequently mailed Notice Booklets to these updated

addresses. When were these Notice Booklets returned as undeliverable, and when did

A.B. Data mail new Notice Booklets to the updated addresses?

(4) Do the parties have anything further to add?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-00336-JSW Document 148 Filed 04/26/06 Page 2 of 2