UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

IN RE CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL 

LABORATORIES, LTD. SECURITIES 

LITIGATION 

Case No. 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2120 Filed 02/28/13 Page 1 of 19
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1

II. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION ......................................................................................... 2

III. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WARRANTS PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ............... 3

A. The Standards for Preliminary Approval ................................................................ 3

B. The Proposed Settlement Is Fair, Reasonable and Adequate ................................. 5

1. The Proposed Settlement Was Negotiated by Informed, Experienced 

Counsel Who Were Aware of the Risks of the Litigation .......................... 5

2. The Proposed Settlement Resulted from Arm’s-Length Negotiations and Is 

Presumed to Be Fair to the Class ................................................................ 6

3. The Plan of Allocation Is Also Reasonable ................................................ 7

C. The Proposed Forms and Method of Providing Notice to the Class Are 

Appropriate and Satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the PSLRA, and Due Process ............ 9

IV. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT SCHEDULE .......................................................................... 11

V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 12

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2121 Filed 02/28/13 Page 2 of 19
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Armstrong v. Bd. of School Dirs. of the City of Milwaukee, 

616 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1980) ...................................................................................................... 4 

Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. General Elec., 

361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................... 10 

Diamond Chem. Co. v. Akzo Nobel Chems. B.V., 

205 F.R.D. 33 (D.D.C. 2001) ...................................................................................................... 9 

Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 

137 F.R.D. 240 (S.D. Ohio 1991) ............................................................................................... 3 

Franks v. Kroger Co., 

649 F.2d 1216 (6th Cir. 1981) .................................................................................................... 3 

Gordon v. Hunt, 

117 F.R.D. 58 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) .................................................................................................. 9 

Gribble v. Cool Transports Inc., 

No. CV 06-04863 GAF (SHx), 2008 WL 5281665 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2008).......................... 7 

In re Am. Bank Note Holographics, Inc. Sec. Litig., 

127 F. Supp. 2d 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ......................................................................................... 8

In re Dun & Bradstreet Credit Services Customer Litig., 

130 F.R.D. 366 (S.D. Ohio 1990) ............................................................................................... 4 

In re Inter Op Hip Prosthesis, Liab. Litig., 

204 F.R.D. 330 (N.D. Ohio 2001) .............................................................................................. 6 

In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 

213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................... 7 

In re Michael Milken & Assocs. Sec. Litig., 

150 F.R.D. 57 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) .................................................................................................. 7 

In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., 

No. 94 CIV. 3996(RWS), 1997 WL 805062 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 1997) .................................... 4 

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2122 Filed 02/28/13 Page 3 of 19
iii 

In re Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc., Accufix Atrial ........................................................................ 3 

137 F. Supp. 2d 985 (S.D. Ohio 2001) 

Mendoza v. Tucson Sch. Dist. No. 1, 

623 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1980) .................................................................................................. 10 

Miracle v. Bullitt County, Ky., 

No. 05-130-C, 2008 WL 3850477 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 15, 2008) ................................................... 4 

Williams v. Vukovich, 

720 F.2d 909 (6th Cir.1983) ........................................................................................... 4, 6, 7, 9 

Other Authorities

Manual for Complex Litigation 

Section 30.41 (3d ed. 1995) ........................................................................................................ 4 

Manual for Complex Litigation 

Section 21.312 (4th ed. 2004) ................................................................................................... 11 

4 Herbert Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions

Section 11.42 (4th ed. 2002) ....................................................................................................... 7 

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2123 Filed 02/28/13 Page 4 of 19
1 

Lead Plaintiff Tushar Amin and plaintiffs Kevin Koziatek and Jonathan Wilkof 

(collectively “plaintiffs”) respectfully move the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) for an 

order: (1) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement in this action (the “Settlement”) as 

memorialized in the Stipulation of Settlement (the “Stipulation”); (2) approval of the form and 

method for giving notice, as provided in the Stipulation of Settlement, which describes, inter 

alia, the pendency of this action, the terms of the proposed Settlement, Class Members’ rights 

with respect thereto, the proposed release of claims, the proposed Plan of Allocation of the 

Settlement proceeds, the request for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses, and the 

procedures for submitting Proofs of Claim; and (3) setting the date for a hearing (the “Settlement 

Hearing”) to consider: (i) whether the proposed Settlement provided for in the Stipulation is fair, 

reasonable and adequate to the Class and should be finally approved by the Court and 

implemented; and (ii) Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees 

and expenses. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiffs submit this memorandum in support of their unopposed motion for preliminary 

approval of the proposed settlement (the “Motion”) of this Litigation on the terms set forth in the 

Stipulation of Settlement dated February 27, 2013 (the “Stipulation” or the “Settlement”),1

 which 

is being filed concurrently herewith. The Settlement provides for the payment of $2,975,000 in 

cash. The Settlement is the result of arm’s-length negotiations between the parties, with the 

assistance of mediator William A. Sankbeil. The Settlement would resolve Plaintiffs’ claims 

against all Defendants. 

 1

 The Stipulation and exhibits are attached as Exhibits to the Motion. All capitalized terms not 

otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Stipulation. 

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2124 Filed 02/28/13 Page 5 of 19
2 

Plaintiffs now ask this Court to enter the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and 

Providing for Notice of Proposed Settlement (the “Preliminary Approval Order”), to which 

Defendants consent, which provides for: 

1. Preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement; 

2. Approval of the form and method for giving notice, as provided in the 

Stipulation, which describes, inter alia, the pendency of this action, the terms of the proposed 

Settlement, Class Members’ rights with respect thereto, the proposed release of claims, the 

proposed Plan of Allocation of the Settlement proceeds, the request for an award of attorneys’ 

fees and expenses, and the procedures for submitting Proofs of Claim; and 

3. Setting the date for a hearing (the “Settlement Hearing”) to consider: (i) whether 

the proposed Settlement provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to the 

Class and should be finally approved by the Court and implemented; and (ii) Plaintiffs’ CoLead Counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. 2 

II. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION 

The initial complaint in this action was filed on July 17, 2009. Plaintiffs subsequently 

filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 11, 2010 on behalf of persons and entities 

who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. 

(“Caraco” or the “Company”) between May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009, inclusive (the “Class 

Period”), and who were damaged thereby (the “Class”). The complaint names as defendants 

Caraco, Daniel H. Movens, Dilip Shanghvi, and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. The 

Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 

20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934. 

 2

 Because Defendants consent to the relief requested in this motion, unless the Court requests 

further briefing, the motion is now fully submitted for the Court’s review. 

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2125 Filed 02/28/13 Page 6 of 19
3 

Defendants moved to dismiss, claiming that plaintiffs purportedly failed to sufficiently 

plead falsity and materiality. On October 21, 2010, the Court largely denied defendants’ motion 

to dismiss. On April 15, 2011, plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. The parties 

then conducted extensive discovery related to class certification, including an expert witness 

deposition, document production, and the preparation of expert reports. On February 28, 2012, 

the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion and rejected defendants’ contentions that class certification 

was inappropriate. The parties also engaged in substantial document discovery. 

On October 11 and 12, 2012, the parties engaged in a mediation with Willaim A. 

Sankbeil. After lengthy settlement negotiations both during and after the mediation, the parties 

negotiated the specific terms of the Stipulation, which was executed on February 27, 2013. 

III. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WARRANTS PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

As a matter of public policy, settlement is a strongly favored method for resolving 

disputes. This is especially true in complex class actions such as this. Franks v. Kroger Co., 649 

F.2d 1216, 1224 (6th Cir. 1981). “Being a preferred means of dispute resolution, there is a 

strong presumption by courts in favor of settlement.” In re Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc., 

Accufix Atrial “J” Leads Products Liability Litig., 137 F. Supp. 2d 985, 1008 (S.D. Ohio 2001); 

see also Enter. Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 137 F.R.D. 240, 246 (S.D. 

Ohio 1991) (“The law generally favors and encourages the settlement of class actions.”). 

A. The Standards for Preliminary Approval 

Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires judicial approval for the 

compromise of claims brought on a class basis. Under Rule 23(e), there are three steps to a class 

action settlement: (1) the court must preliminarily approve the proposed settlement; (2) members 

of the class must then be given notice of the proposed settlement; (3) a hearing must be held, 

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2126 Filed 02/28/13 Page 7 of 19
4 

after which the Court must decide whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and 

adequate. In re Dun & Bradstreet Credit Services Customer Litig., 130 F.R.D. 366, 369-70 (S.D. 

Ohio 1990) (citing Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909 (6th Cir.1983)). 

At this juncture, the parties request only preliminary approval of the Settlement. As 

courts considering preliminarily approving class action settlements have stated: 

In considering whether to grant preliminary approval to a class action settlement 

agreement, courts make a preliminary evaluation of the fairness of the settlement, 

prior to a hearing on notice. Where the proposed settlement appears to be the 

product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious 

deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class 

representatives or segments of the class and falls within the range of possible 

approval, preliminary approval should be granted. 

In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., No. 94 CIV. 3996(RWS), 1997 WL 805062, at *8 

(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 1997) (citing Manual for Complex Litigation (Third) § 30.41, at 237 (1995)); 

see also Miracle v. Bullitt County, Ky., No. 05-130-C, 2008 WL 3850477, at *5 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 

15, 2008) (citations omitted). Thus, the preliminary approval hearing “is not a fairness hearing; 

its purpose, rather, is to ascertain whether there is any reason to notify the class members of the 

proposed settlement and to proceed with a fairness hearing.” Armstrong v. Bd. of School Dirs. of 

the City of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 314 (7th Cir. 1980) (footnote omitted). 

Here, Plaintiffs request only that the Court take the first step in this process, granting 

preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement. This is warranted because the Settlement, 

which provides an immediate and substantial benefit of $2,975,000 in cash for distribution to 

eligible Class members, is certainly beneficial to the Class. This is particularly true in light of 

the complexities of this action and the substantial risks of continued litigation, including the risk 

of Class members receiving no recovery if the action were to continue. Thus, since the Proposed 

Settlement meets the criteria for preliminary approval and is well within the range of what might 

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2127 Filed 02/28/13 Page 8 of 19
5 

be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, Plaintiffs, with Defendants’ consent, respectfully 

request that this Court enter the proposed Preliminary Approval Order. 

B. The Proposed Settlement Is Fair, Reasonable and Adequate 

1. The Proposed Settlement Was Negotiated by Informed, Experienced 

 Counsel Who Were Aware of the Risks of the Litigation 

The Proposed Settlement of $2,975,000 million is well within the range of fairness. The 

settlement amount constitutes at least 20% of the total damages that plaintiffs’ expert 

preliminarily assessed for the maximum possible artificial inflation during the Class Period. 

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants, moreover, have extensive experience in securities 

litigation and reached settlement only after lengthy arm’s-length negotiations, and substantial 

mediations before neutral mediator William A. Sankbeil. 

Plaintiffs and their counsel believe that they have conducted a thorough investigation of 

the claims asserted in the Litigation. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ counsel consulted with forensic 

accountants as well as damages and market finance experts. The Settling Parties have also 

drafted and submitted confidential mediation statements to the mediator, William A. Sankbeil. 

Thus, the proposed Settlement was entered into only after Plaintiffs and their counsel conducted 

a thorough analysis of the legal and factual issues and the risks associated with continued 

litigation. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel, who have a great deal of experience in litigating and resolving 

complex securities class actions, have carefully evaluated the merits of this case and the 

proposed Settlement. Because this litigation is subject to the provisions of the Private Securities 

Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. '78u-4, which makes it more difficult for 

investors to bring and successfully conclude securities class actions, Plaintiffs faced not only the 

general risks of any litigation, but also the risks that Plaintiffs’ claims might not ultimately 

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2128 Filed 02/28/13 Page 9 of 19
6 

survive Defendants’ summary judgment attacks regarding, inter alia, loss causation, scienter, 

liability or damages. 

Beyond the inherent risks of any litigation, Defendants also asserted various defenses. 

While Plaintiffs believe that they would ultimately prevail over such defenses, they recognize 

that the difficulty of establishing liability at trial is significant. Thus, the proposed Settlement 

eliminates the risk that Plaintiffs and the Class could receive no recovery. The continued 

prosecution of the action would be complex, expensive and lengthy with a more favorable 

outcome highly uncertain. The proposed Settlement represents an excellent resolution given the 

substantial risks of expense and delay of continued litigation, and the maximum potential 

recovery the Class could have achieved had it prevailed versus the certain and immediate 

recovery for the Class. 

In sum, Plaintiffs were armed with extensive information about the underlying facts and 

the strengths and weaknesses of the case so as to reasonably assess the potential value of the case 

and make an intelligent appraisal of the proposed Settlement. Plaintiffs were able to evaluate the 

potential risks, benefits and delays of trying the case and dealing with inevitable appeals, and to 

weigh those considerations against the benefits of the proposed Settlement, with its significant 

cash payment. Consequently, Plaintiffs’ counsel was able to negotiate the proposed Settlement 

and to achieve a recovery of $2,975,000, representing a significant recovery for the Class. 

2. The Proposed Settlement Resulted from Arm’s-Length Negotiations 

and Is Presumed to Be Fair to the Class 

There is an initial presumption that a proposed settlement is fair and reasonable when it is 

the result of arm’s length negotiations. Williams, 720 F.2d at 922-23 (“The court should defer to 

the judgment of experienced counsel who has competently evaluated the strength of his proofs”); 

In re Inter-Op Hip Prosthesis, Liab. Litig., 204 F.R.D. 330, 351 (N.D. Ohio 2001) (“when a 

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2129 Filed 02/28/13 Page 10 of 19
7 

settlement is the result of extensive negotiations by experienced counsel, the court should 

presume it is fair”); see also 4 Herbert Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions 

'11.42 at 119 (4th ed. 2002). 

Without question, the proposed Settlement is the product of arm’s-length negotiations. 

The proposed Settlement was reached only after extensive investigation, mediation statements 

were prepared and submitted to the mediator, Willaim A. Sankbeil, and consultation with 

accounting, damage, and market finance experts. 

Based on their familiarity with the factual and legal issues, the parties were able to 

negotiate the proposed Settlement, taking into account the costs and risks of continued litigation. 

There was no collusion among the Parties. See, e.g., In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 

454, 458 (9th Cir. 2000). The negotiations were at all times adversarial and at arm’s-length, and 

produced a result that the parties believe to be in their respective best interests. Counsel for both 

sides have extensive experience in securities class action litigation and are thoroughly familiar 

with the factual and legal issues involved. The opinion of experienced counsel, as here, 

supporting the proposed Settlement is entitled to considerable weight. Williams, 720 F.2d at 

922-23; see also In re Michael Milken & Assocs. Sec. Litig., 150 F.R.D. 57, 66 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 

(finding that the views of experienced counsel are “entitled to great weight”) (citation omitted); 

Gribble v. Cool Transports Inc., No. CV 06-04863 GAF (SHx), 2008 WL 5281665, at *9 (C.D. 

Cal. Dec. 15, 2008) (“Great weight is accorded to the recommendation of counsel, who are most 

closely acquainted with the facts of the underlying litigation.”) 

3. The Plan of Allocation Is Also Reasonable 

The Plan of Allocation for distributing the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund (after 

the payment of attorneys’ fees, costs of administration, taxes, any payment under 15 U.S.C. 

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2130 Filed 02/28/13 Page 11 of 19
8 

'78u-4(a)(4), and any other court-approved payments) is described at length in the Notice of 

Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, and 

Settlement Fairness Hearing (the “Notice”). It was devised with the assistance of an 

experienced damages expert, taking into account the appropriate loss causation issues. 

Whether a member of the Class has sustained a loss that will entitle the Class Member to 

recover from the Settlement Fund will depend on the calculation of a “recognized loss” for that 

member. The calculation of the “recognized loss” will depend on several factors, including (a) 

when each Class Member purchased the shares of Caraco, and (b) whether the Class Member 

sold such shares during or after the Class Period and, if so, when. 

The proposed Plan of Allocation is based on Plaintiffs’ theory of the case and reflects 

Plaintiffs’ contention that the price of Caraco common stock was artificially inflated by reason of 

the allegedly false and misleading statements made by Defendants during the Class Period. 

There is no reason to doubt the fairness of the proposed Plan of Allocation for purposes of 

preliminary approval. Even at the final-approval stage, “[a]n allocation formula need only have 

a reasonable, rational basis [to warrant approval], particularly if recommended by ‘experienced 

and competent’ class counsel.” In re Am. Bank Note Holographics, Inc. Sec. Litig., 127 F. Supp. 

2d 418, 429-30 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). 

In light of the above considerations, the proposed Settlement as a whole falls within the 

range of possible final approval. The Court should, therefore, grant preliminary approval of the 

proposed Settlement and direct that notice of the proposed Settlement be given to members of 

the Class. 

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2131 Filed 02/28/13 Page 12 of 19
9 

C. The Proposed Forms and Method of Providing Notice to the Class Are 

 Appropriate and Satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the PSLRA, and Due Process 

Rule 23(e) governs notice requirements for settlements or “compromises” in class 

actions. The Rule provides that a class action shall not be dismissed or compromised without 

the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise shall be given to 

all members of the class in such manner as the court directs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Here, the 

parties propose to mail, by first class mail, individual copies of the Notice and the Proof of 

Claim and Release (the “Proof of Claim”), to all Class Members who can be identified with 

reasonable effort, as well as to brokerage firms and other nominees who regularly act as 

nominees for beneficial purchasers of stock. In addition, a summary notice (the “Summary 

Notice”), will be published in Investor’s Business Daily, a well known, widely circulated 

business-oriented publication, and on a different day, the Summary Notice will be published on 

Globe Newswire. The proposed method of giving notice to Class Members is appropriate 

because it is calculated to reach the Class Members who can be indentified with reasonable 

effort. See Williams, 720 F.2d at 921; see also Diamond Chem. Co. v. Akzo Nobel Chems. 

B.V., 205 F.R.D. 33, 34 (D.D.C. 2001); Gordon v. Hunt, 117 F.R.D. 58, 63 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) 

(combination of mailed and published notice is “long-accepted norm in large class actions”). 

As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2), the Notice will inform Class Members of the 

claims alleged in the action, the terms of the Proposed Settlement and their rights as Class 

Members to opt out or object to the Settlement, or otherwise object to the Plan of Allocation 

and/or the proposed attorneys’ fees and expenses. Additionally, the Notice provides the specifics 

on the date, time and place of the Settlement Hearing, and the deadlines and procedures for 

submitting objections to and requests for exclusion from the Settlement. Moreover, the Notice 

contained information regarding counsel’s Fee and Expense Application and the proposed Pan of 

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2132 Filed 02/28/13 Page 13 of 19
10 

Allocation for the Settlement proceeds to Class Members, including the estimated amount per 

share Class Members will receive from the Settlement. Thus, the Notice provides all information 

required and necessary for Class Members to make an informed decision on the merits of the 

Settlement and be advised of their option with respect to the Settlement. See, e.g., Churchill 

Village, L.L.C. v. General Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Notice is satisfactory if it 

‘generally describes the terms of the settlement in sufficient detail to alert those with adverse 

viewpoints to investigate and to come forward and be heard.’”), quoting Mendoza v. Tucson Sch. 

Dist. No. 1, 623 F.2d 1338, 1352 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Since the parties have carefully drafted the notice provisions of the proposed Settlement 

to provide the best notice practicable to the Class, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Notice 

(based in part on the illustrative notice of proposed class action certification and settlement 

developed by the Federal Judicial Center at the request of the Subcommittee on Class Actions 

of the U.S. Judicial Branch’s Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) 

and the Summary Notice, are adequate. 

Plaintiffs also respectfully request the appointment of the Garden City Group, Inc., an 

experienced and diligent administrator, as Claims Administrator. As Claims Administrator, the 

Garden City Group, Inc. (“GCG”) will be responsible for, among other things, mailing the 

notices to the Class, reviewing claims from Class Members, claims administration, and 

compiling a distribution schedule to Class Members. 

This proposed notice procedure takes into account the identity and location of the Class 

Members and specifies the most practicable method of providing notice to them. The 

traditional methods of providing notice proposed in this case are precisely those recognized as 

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2133 Filed 02/28/13 Page 14 of 19
11 

reasonably calculated to notify class members of a proposed settlement. See Manual for 

Complex Litigation (Fourth) '21.312, at 294 (2004). 

IV. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT SCHEDULE 

The Court’s entry of the proposed Preliminary Approval Order would, among other 

things, (i) direct notice of the Proposed Settlement to all members of the Class; and (ii) schedule 

the Settlement Hearing to consider whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as being 

fair, reasonable and adequate. As such, the Preliminary Approval Order sets a proposed 

schedule for mailing and publication of the Notice and Summary Notice, and deadlines for 

submitting claims and/or objecting to the Proposed Settlement or opting out of the Class. 

Plaintiffs recommend the schedule set forth below. Defendants agree to the proposed 

schedule setting the Settlement Hearing a minimum of 100 days after the granting of the 

Preliminary Approval Order. The parties also agree to the schedule for the other dates, as 

provided for in the proposed Preliminary Approval Order, which were negotiated among the 

parties. 

Notice Mailed to Class Members 20 business days after entry of the order 

preliminarily approving the settlement 

Summary Notice published 30 business days after entry of the order 

preliminarily approving the settlement 

Settlement Hearing To be determined by the Court, Plaintiffs 

propose the hearing be set a minimum of 

100 days after the order preliminarily 

approving the settlement 

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2134 Filed 02/28/13 Page 15 of 19
12 

Deadline for Plaintiffs to file papers in 

support of final approval and application for 

fees and expenses. 

35 days prior to the Settlement Hearing 

Deadline for requesting exclusion from the 

Settlement 

28 days prior to the Settlement Hearing 

Deadline for Plaintiffs to file papers in 

further support of final approval and 

application for fees and expenses. 

35 days prior to the Settlement Hearing 

Deadline for submitting Proof of Claim 

forms 

120 days from the Notice Date 

V. CONCLUSION 

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter the Preliminary Approval Order, to 

which Defendants have consented, and to direct the Notice be distributed to the members of the 

Class. 

Dated: February 28, 2013 GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 

 By: s/ Ex Kano S. Sams II 

 Lionel Z. Glancy 

Peter A. Binkow 

Ex Kano S. Sams II 

1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 

 Los Angeles, California 90067 

Telephone: (310) 201-9150 

Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2135 Filed 02/28/13 Page 16 of 19
13 

THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 

E. Powell Miller 

Christopher D. Kaye 

Marc L. Newman 

Courtney B. Ciullo 

950 West University Drive, Suite 300 

Rochester, MI 48307 

Telephone: (248) 841-2200 

Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 

Lead Counsel and Class Counsel 

KENDALL LAW GROUP LLP 

Joe Kendall 

Jamie McKey 

3232 McKinney, Suite 700 

Dallas, TX 75204 

Telephone: (214) 744-3000 

Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 

 

 Additional Counsel for the Class

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2136 Filed 02/28/13 Page 17 of 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I, Ex Kano S. Sams II, certify that on February 28, 2013, I electronically filed the 

following document with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send 

notification of such filing to the parties listed on the attached Court’s ECF Service List: 

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. There are no known non-ECF participants. 

See Attached Service List.

 

GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 

 /s/ Ex Kano S. Sams II 

Ex Kano S. Sams II 

1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 

Los Angeles, California 90067 

Telephone: (310) 201-9150 

Email: esams@glancylaw.com 

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2137 Filed 02/28/13 Page 18 of 19
Electronic Mail Notice List

The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case.

Peter A. Binkow

pbinkow@glancylaw.com

Courtney B. Ciullo

cbc@millerlawpc.com

Margaret A. Goetze - NOT SWORN

mgoetze@briggs.com,dburrell@briggs.com

E. Powell Miller

epm@millerlawpc.com,aad@millerlawpc.com,ach@millerlawpc.com

Marc L. Newman

mln@millerlawpc.com,ach@millerlawpc.com,asl@millerlawpc.com

Ex Kano S Sams - NOT SWORN , II

esams@glancylaw.com

Frank A. Taylor

ftaylor@briggs.com,mgoetze@briggs.com

S. Thomas Wienner

twienner@wiennergould.com,jtibbs@wiennergould.com

Manual Notice List

The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case (who therefore

require manual noticing). You may wish to use your mouse to select and copy this list into your word processing

program in order to create notices or labels for these recipients.

(No manual recipients)

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied- https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?469933752989302-L_1_0-1

1 of 2 2/28/2013 2:10 PM

Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS ECF No. 82, PageID.2138 Filed 02/28/13 Page 19 of 19