Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01525/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01525-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

VICTORIA MUNOZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-01525 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 JULY 6, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers 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 Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action

Settlements Agreement and Certification of Classes and tentatively GRANTS Plaintiffs’

Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs to Class Counsel. 

Case 3:05-cv-01525-JSW Document 144 Filed 07/02/07 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

The parties shall have 10 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Is there anyone present or known to the parties who objects to the proposed settlement

or wishes to be excluded from the class? If so, on what basis? Has CalCLAD heard

again from the five class members regarding the settlements (see Declaration of J.

Kendrick Kresse, ¶ 6)?

2. Is there anyone present or known to the parties who objects to proposed award of

attorneys’ fees and costs? If so, on what basis?

3. Should any potential class member raise an objection between now and July 27, 2007,

would such an objection be timely and, if so, how would such an objection be

recognized by the Court?

4. Do the parties have any further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01525-JSW Document 144 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 2