1

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE: MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

USDC NDCA Case #CV 09-01263 JSW

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

BRYAN SCHWARTZ (SBN 209903)

HILLARY JO BAKER (SBN 265019)

BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW 

180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1550

Oakland, CA 94612

Tel.: 510-444-9300

FAX: 510-444-9301

Email: Bryan@BryanSchwartzLaw.com

Attorneys for Individual and Representative Plaintiffs

MARTIN K. DENISTON (SBN 106737)

DANIEL H. LEE (SBN 217001)

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ,

EDELMAN & DICKER LLP

555 South Flower Street Suite 2900 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Telephone: (213) 443-5100 

Facsimile: (213) 443-5101

Email: Daniel.Lee@wilsonelser.com 

 Martin.Deniston@wilsonelser.com

Attorneys for Defendants,

SAMSONITE COMPANY STORES, INC. (now 

known as Samsonite Company Stores, LLC) and 

SAMSONITE CORPORATION (now known 

as Samsonite LLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ROSALIE PEARSON and DENNIS 

NEWSHAM, individually, on behalf of others 

similarly situated, and on behalf of the general 

public,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

SAMSONITE COMPANY STORES, INC., 

SAMSONITE CORPORATION, and DOES 1 –

50, inclusive,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CV 09-01263 JSW

STIPULATED REQUEST OF THE 

PARTIES TO HAVE THEIR JOINT 

MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF 

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

HEARD ON APRIL 9, 2010;

[Proposed] ORDER;

DECLARATION OF BRYAN J. 

SCHWARTZ, ESQ.

Case 3:09-cv-01263-JSW Document 66 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 5 Case3:09-cv-01263-JSW Document64 Filed02/09/10 Page1 of 5
2

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE: MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

USDC NDCA Case #CV 09-01263 JSW

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

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and requested by Plaintiffs ROSALIE PEARSON and 

DENNIS NEWSHAM (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants SAMSONITE COMPANY 

STORES, INC. and SAMSONITE CORPORATION (now known as Samsonite Company Stores, 

LLC and Samsonite LLC, respectively) (hereinafter “Defendants”) that the Court allow their Joint 

Motion for Final Approval of Stipulation of Settlement to be filed on April 2, 2010 and to be heard

or April 9, 2010 or as soon thereafter as practicable on any date that is convenient for the Court.

1. Local Rule 6-1(b) requires the Plaintiffs and Defendants (hereinafter “Parties”) to 

obtain a Court Order changing a time that would affect the date of an event or deadline already 

fixed by Court order. Local Rule 6-2(a) authorizes the Parties to seek such relief from the Court by 

filing a written stipulation.

2. Under Local Rule 6-2(a), “the stipulated request must be accompanied by a 

declaration that: (1) Sets forth with particularity, the reasons for the requested enlargement or 

shortening of time; (2) Discloses all previous time modifications in the case, whether by stipulation 

or Court order; and (3) Describes the effect the requested time modification would have on the 

schedule for the case.”

3. On or about November 5, 2009, the Parties reached a settlement of the present 

dispute on a class basis and obtained the Court’s preliminary approval of that settlement, on 

December 18, 2009. See Declaration of Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq. (“Schwartz Dec.”), filed 

contemporaneously with this Stipulation. To accomplish that end, the Parties cooperated with each 

other and worked diligently in preparing a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Stipulation of 

Settlement, and exhibits in support of that motion, including, but not limited to, a detailed 

Stipulation of Settlement. Id. The Parties’ preliminary approval papers and Stipulation of 

Settlement did not seek a specific date for the final fairness hearing, which is the purpose of this 

Stipulation. 

4. Since notifications were mailed to the class pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement, 

which occurred in the last week of December 2009, more than 50% of eligible class members have 

filed claim forms/opted-into the case, with not a single objection or withdrawal/opt-out filed. 

Case 3:09-cv-01263-JSW Document 66 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 5 Case3:09-cv-01263-JSW Document64 Filed02/09/10 Page2 of 5
3

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE: MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

USDC NDCA Case #CV 09-01263 JSW

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

Schwartz Dec. Class members have until March 29, 2010 to opt-in/file a claim or withdraw/optout/object. Id.

5. Because the period for filing claims/objecting does not end until March 29, 2010, 

April 2, 2010 is the earliest date practicable that the Parties can file their final approval motion.

Schwartz Dec.

6. Because of the thoroughness of the preliminary approval papers and the anticipated 

high participation rate and the lack of objections/opt-outs/withdrawals, the parties do not anticipate 

that lengthy or contentious briefing will be required for final approval. Schwartz Dec. “[The] 

preliminary determination establishes an initial presumption of fairness....” Chun-Hoon v. McKee 

Foods Corp., 2009 WL 3349549, *2 (N.D.Cal. October 15, 2009 (Walker, C.J.) (citing In re 

General Motors Corp., 55 F.3d 768, 784 (3d Cir. 1995)). In final approval briefing, the parties will 

simply be summarizing how they complied with the detailed settlement plan already given 

preliminary approval by this Court, with additional information provided for the Court’s reference 

concerning the Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. Schwartz Dec.

7. On February 8, 2010, counsel for Plaintiffs and the class consulted the Court’s 

calendar at: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/calendar.nsf/ExtraInfoLinkDocs/JSW. Schwartz 

Dec. A true and correct print copy of the Court’s calendar is attached to Schwartz Dec. as Exhibit 

A. 

8. Exhibit A does not suggest any conflict with holding a hearing for final approval on 

April 9, 2010 at 9 a.m. However, inasmuch as the Parties will file their joint motion for final 

approval on April 2, 2010, the Parties are filing this motion seeking the April 9, 2010 hearing date 

because the time period between motion filing and the proposed hearing date is shorter than that 

normally provided in the Northern District of California for scheduling motion hearings (35 days).

Thus, the Parties are presently seeking the Court’s assistance through this stipulated request. 

9. The Parties respectfully submit that granting the requested relief will confer a benefit 

to the Plaintiffs, the Class Members, the Defendants, and the Court. First, bankruptcy counsel for 

Samsonite Company Stores, LLC has advised that Samsonite Company Stores, LLC, is seeking to 

Case 3:09-cv-01263-JSW Document 66 Filed 02/17/10 Page 3 of 5 Case3:09-cv-01263-JSW Document64 Filed02/09/10 Page3 of 5
4

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE: MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

USDC NDCA Case #CV 09-01263 JSW

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

wind-down the administration of and close its bankruptcy case. Schwartz Dec. The Plaintiffs’/class 

members’ claim in that bankruptcy case is currently an unliquidated and contingent claim in those 

proceedings, the resolution of which will not occur until after final approval is (hopefully) granted 

concerning this settlement. Id. As for Plaintiffs and the class members, the sooner the final approval

is (hopefully) granted, the sooner the Plaintiffs and class members can receive their settlement 

payments. Since some class members are out of work or otherwise have great financial need at this 

time, the benefit of expeditious payment is significant. Id. Finally, the Parties recognize that the 

Court has a busy calendar, but if the Court is graciously able to accommodate the present request 

and allow the Joint Motion to be heard on April 9, 2010, or its earliest opportunity thereafter, it will 

allow the settlement to be confirmed, and the case to be closed, conserving judicial resources.

10. As noted above, the Parties anticipate no opposition to the Joint Motion filed by any 

party to this case. Scheduling an uncontested motion, as opposed to a contested motion, will cause 

less burden on the Court, which should favor the Parties’ respectful submission that the Court hear 

the Joint Motion on April 9, 2010. 

11. Moreover, inasmuch as the Parties are filing a joint motion, with no likely 

opposition, there will no prejudice to any party by shortening time to hear the Joint Motion. 

Moreover, there will be no prejudice to any would-be objectors (i.e., class members) by shortening 

time to hear the Joint Motion. An early hearing of the Joint Motion will not affect their rights 

materially since the class members have a full ninety (90) days to exercise their right to object, optout, or withdraw from the class, and, if they intervene, they will have ample opportunity to learn of 

the date for the final fairness hearing.

12. The Parties previously made three stipulated time modifications in this matter, 

extending Defendants’ time to file an Answer, tolling the statute of limitations for FLSA putative 

class members based upon Defendant Samsonite Company Stores, Inc.’s bankruptcy, and ensuring 

a hearing of the preliminary approval motion in 2009 (33 days after it was filed, on a date that was 

otherwise listed as unavailable for the Court) (Docket Nos. 9, 33, 51).

Case 3:09-cv-01263-JSW Document 66 Filed 02/17/10 Page 4 of 5 Case3:09-cv-01263-JSW Document64 Filed02/09/10 Page4 of 5
5

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE: MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

USDC NDCA Case #CV 09-01263 JSW

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

Based on the foregoing, the Parties jointly respectfully request that the Court set the 

deadline for filing the Joint Motion for Final Approval on April 2, 2010, and set the hearing on the 

final approval motion for April 9, 2010, or the earliest date thereafter that is convenient for the 

Court.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATE: February 9, 2010 BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW

By: /s/ Bryan Schwartz

BRYAN SCHWARTZ

HILLARY BAKER

Attorney for Plaintiffs

ROSALIE PEARSON, DENNIS 

NEWSHAM, AND THE CLASS

DATE: February 9, 2010 WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN 

& DICKER LLP

By: /s/Daniel H. Lee

MARTIN K. DENISTON 

DANIEL H. LEE

Attorney for Defendants

SAMSONITE COMPANY STORES, INC. 

and SAMSONITE CORPORATION

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED that the Parties’ Joint Motion For 

Final Approval Of Class Action Settlement can be heard on: 

_________________________________, 2010.

Date: ________________ ________________________________

The Honorable Jeffrey S. White

United States District Judge for the Northern District 

of California

Case3:09-cv-01263-JSW Document64 Filed02/09/10 Page5 of 5

April 9

February 17, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-01263-JSW Document 66 Filed 02/17/10 Page 5 of 5