Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Florence Wallace, et al v. Robert J. Powell

December 14, 2012

FLORENCE WALLACE, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
ROBERT J. POWELL, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS. WILLIAM CONWAY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MICHAEL T. CONAHAN, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS. H.T., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MARK A. CIAVARELLA, JR., ET AL., DEFENDANTS. SAMANTHA HUMANIK, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARK A. CIAVARELLA, JR., ET AL., DEFENDANTS. RAUL CLARK, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MICHAEL T. CONAHAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. WAYNE DAWN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MARK A. CIAVARELLA, JR., ET AL., DEFENDANTS. ANGELA RIMMER BELANGER, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MARK A. CIAVARELLA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Caputo

FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT

NOW, this 14th day of December, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Class Certification (Doc. 1227) and all supporting documents and responses thereto, Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Doc. 1229) and all supporting documents, and following a Final Approval Hearing held on November 19, 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This Order incorporates and makes part hereof:

a. The Master Settlement Agreement, filed December 16, 2011, including Exhibits A through C thereto (collectively, the "MSA"), which sets forth the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement (the "Settlement").

b. The findings and conclusions contained in the Court's February 28, 2012 Order Conditionally Certifying Settlement Class and Preliminarily Approving Proposed Settlement (the "Preliminary Approval Order"). (Doc. 1084.)

All defined terms in this Order have the same meaning as in the MSA.

2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Mericle Parties, Luzerne County Parties, and Plaintiffs. The Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, including, without limitation, jurisdiction to approve the Settlement, to settle and release all claims arising out of the transactions alleged in the Master Long Form Complaint for Individual Actions ("IC") and the Master Complaint for Class Actions ("CAC") (collectively the "Complaints") and set forth in the Released Claims (as defined in the MSA), and to dismiss this action on the merits with prejudice as to the Mericle Parties and Luzerne County Parties ONLY. All Class Members who have not excluded themselves from the Class have consented to the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of this action and the partial settlement of this action.

3. The Classes, as defined in the Court's Preliminary Approval Order to which notice was directed, are hereby finally certified for settlement purposes. No person who previously requested exclusion from the class by timely opting-out shall be a member of the Class for purposes of Rule 23(c)(3)(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but all other persons within the class as defined in the Preliminary Approval Order shall be subject to this Final Order and Judgment.

4. Caroselli Beachler McTiernan & Conboy, LLC; Anapol Schwartz; Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller; and Juvenile Law Center ("Co-Lead Counsel" or "Class Counsel") and other counsel of record herein for the Named Plaintiffs have fully and adequately represented the Classes for purposes of entering and implementing the Settlement and have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable law. Caroselli Beachler McTiernan & Conboy, LLC; Anapol Schwartz; Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller; and Juvenile Law Center shall continue as Co-Lead Counsel.

5. Mailed Notice was sent to each reasonably identifiable Class Member via first-class and certified mail to their last known addresses, and Published Notice took place in the Times Leader and the Citizens' Voice in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order. Other materials were also made available by website. The Court, therefore, concludes:

a. The Notice constituted the best practicable notice to Class Members under the circumstances of this action.

b. The Notice was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Class Members of (i) the pendency of this class action lawsuit, (ii) their right to exclude themselves from the Classes, (iii) their right to object to any aspect of the proposed Settlement, the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the proposed Settlement, the adequacy of the Classes' representation by Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' Counsel, and/or the award of Common Benefit Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, (iv) their right to request to appear at the Fairness Hearing, personally or through counsel, if they did not exclude themselves from the Class, and (v) the binding effect of the orders and judgment in this action, whether favorable or unfavorable, on all persons who did not request exclusion from the Classes.

c. The Notice was reasonable and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.