Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05344/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05344-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

United States District Court

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

CHRISTINE KUEHBECK, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 GENESIS MICROCHIP, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 02-05344 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON AUGUST 17, 2007 AT 9:00 a.m.:

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 or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil

Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their

reliance on such authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS the motion to distribute the net settlement fund. 

The parties each shall have ten (10) minutes to address the following questions:

Case 3:02-cv-05344-JSW Document 112 Filed 08/15/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

1. Have there been any claimants who have contested the Settlement

Administrator’s determination of their claim subsequent to the filing of this

motion?

2. Have there been any further adjustments regarding Proofs of Claim subsequent

to the filing of the motion? See Declaration of Steven J. Cirami, ¶ 15.

3. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-05344-JSW Document 112 Filed 08/15/07 Page 2 of 2