DOCSLIB.ORG

Notice of Motion and Mot. for Final Approval, Fees, Costs, & Service Awards Case No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Notice of Motion and Mot. for Final Approval, Fees, Costs, & Service Awards Case No Case 8:15-cv-02052-DOC-KES Document 272 Filed 05/28/19 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:16237 1 Eric H. Gibbs (SBN 178658) 2 [email protected] David Stein (SBN 257465) 3 [email protected] 4 GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 5 Oakland, California 94612 6 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 7 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 8 Kim D. Stephens (pro hac vice) 9 [email protected] Jason T. Dennett (pro hac vice) 10 [email protected] 11 TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 12 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98101 13 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 14 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 15 Proposed Class Counsel 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 BILLY GLENN, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-02052-DOC-KES 20 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION 21 v. AND MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND 22 HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, et AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES, 23 al., LITIGATION COSTS, AND 24 SERVICE AWARDS Defendants. 25 Date: August 12, 2019 26 Time: 8:30 a.m. Judge: The Hon. David O. Carter 27 Courtroom: 9D 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL, FEES, COSTS, & SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. 8:15-CV-02052-DOC-KES Case 8:15-cv-02052-DOC-KES Document 272 Filed 05/28/19 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:16238 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 26, 2019, or as soon thereafter as the 3 matter may be heard, before the Honorable David O. Carter, District Judge of the 4 United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Courtroom 9D, 5 Ronald Reagan Federal Building, United States Courthouse, 411 West Fourth 6 Street, Santa Ana, California 92701, Plaintiffs Billy Glenn, Kim Fama, Jahan 7 Mulla, Kathy Warburton, Roxana Fitzmaurice, and Corinne Kane will, and hereby 8 do move for an order of the Court to certify a settlement class, finally approve the 9 parties’ proposed classwide settlement, and approve the negotiated award of 10 $5,400,000 (inclusive of attorney’s fees, reimbursement of over $700,00 in litigation 11 costs, and service awards of $5,000 each to Plaintiffs Glenn, Fama, Mulla, 12 Warburton, Fitzmaurice, and Kane). 13 Plaintiffs’ motion is based on this notice; the accompanying memorandum of 14 points and authorities; the previously-filed declaration of David Stein, dated January 15 30, 2019 (ECF 264); accompanying declarations of David Stein, Jason Dennett, 16 Gregory F. Coleman, Paul Peel, and Kirk Kleckner; the Proposed Final Order and 17 Judgment; and all other papers filed and proceedings had in this action. 18 19 DATED: May 28, 2019 Respectfully submitted, 20 GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 21 22 By: /s/ David Stein 23 Eric H. Gibbs (SBN 178659) 24 Steve Lopez (SBN 300540) 25 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, California 94612 26 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 27 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 28 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL, FEES, COSTS, & SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. 8:15-CV-02052-DOC-KES Case 8:15-cv-02052-DOC-KES Document 272 Filed 05/28/19 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:16239 1 [email protected] [email protected] 2 [email protected] 3 Kim D. Stephens (pro hac vice) 4 Jason T. Dennett (pro hac vice) 5 TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 6 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 7 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 8 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 [email protected] 9 [email protected] 10 11 Proposed Class Counsel 12 Gregory F. Coleman (pro hac vice) 13 Lisa A. White (pro hac vice) Mark E. Silvey (pro hac vice) 14 GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 15 First Tennessee Plaza 16 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, Tennessee 37929 17 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 18 Facsimile: (865) 533-0049 [email protected] 19 [email protected] 20 [email protected] 21 Shanon J. Carson (pro hac vice) 22 Paul C. Peel (pro hac vice) 23 FARRIS BOBANGO BRANAN PLC 999 S. Shady Grove Road, Suite 500 24 Memphis, Tennessee 38120 25 (901) 259-7100 Telephone 26 (901) 259-7150 Facsimile [email protected] 27 28 Eric Lechtzin (SBN 248958) 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL, FEES, COSTS, & SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. 8:15-CV-02052-DOC-KES Case 8:15-cv-02052-DOC-KES Document 272 Filed 05/28/19 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:16240 1 BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street 2 Philadelphia, PA 19103 3 215-875-3000 Telephone 215-875-4604 Facsimile 4 [email protected] 5 [email protected] 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL, FEES, COSTS, & SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. 8:15-CV-02052-DOC-KES Case 8:15-cv-02052-DOC-KES Document 272-1 Filed 05/28/19 Page 1 of 46 Page ID #:16241 1 Eric H. Gibbs (SBN 178658) 2 [email protected] David Stein (SBN 257465) 3 [email protected] 4 GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 5 Oakland, California 94612 6 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 7 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 8 Kim D. Stephens (pro hac vice) 9 [email protected] Jason T. Dennett (pro hac vice) 10 [email protected] 11 TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 12 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98101 13 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 14 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 15 Proposed Class Counsel 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 BILLY GLENN, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-02052-DOC-KES 20 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN 21 v. SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND 22 HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, et AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES, 23 al., LITIGATION COSTS, AND 24 SERVICE AWARDS Defendants. 25 Date: August 12, 2019 26 Time: 8:30 a.m. Judge: The Hon. David O. Carter 27 Courtroom: 9D 28 MEMORANDUM: FINAL APPROVAL, FEES, COSTS, & SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. 8:15-CV-02052-DOC-KES Case 8:15-cv-02052-DOC-KES Document 272-1 Filed 05/28/19 Page 2 of 46 Page ID #:16242 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 3 HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION ................................................................................. 3 4 OVERVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT ............................................................................ 5 5 I. The proposed settlement class ...................................................................... 5 6 II. Benefits to the settlement class ...................................................................... 6 7 III. The scope of class members’ release of claims ............................................... 9 8 IV. The provision for attorney’s fees, costs, and service awards ......................... 10 9 THE COURT SHOULD GRANT FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL ............................... 10 10 I. The proposed settlement merits approval. ................................................... 10 11 A. The class representatives and Class Counsel have adequately 12 represented the class. ......................................................................... 11 13 B. The proposed settlement was negotiated at arm’s length. ................... 11 14 C. The quality of relief to the class weighs in favor of approval. .............. 13 15 1. The settlement provides strong relief for the class. ....................... 13 16 2. Continued litigation would entail substantial cost, risk, and delay. 17 .................................................................................................. 15 18 3. The settlement agreement provides for an effective distribution of 19 proceeds to the class and a streamlined claims process. ............... 16 20 4. The terms of the proposed award of attorney’s fees, including 21 timing of payment, also support settlement approval. .................. 17 22 5. The parties have no other agreements pertaining to the settlement. 23 .................................................................................................. 18 24 D. The settlement treats all settlement class members equitably. ............. 18 25 II. Certification of the class is appropriate for settlement purposes.................... 20 26 A. The class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) for settlement 27 purposes. .......................................................................................... 20 28 1. The class members are too numerous to be joined. ...................... 20 i MEMORANDUM: FINAL APPROVAL, FEES, COSTS, & SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. 8:15-CV-02052-DOC-KES Case 8:15-cv-02052-DOC-KES Document 272-1 Filed 05/28/19 Page 3 of 46 Page ID #:16243 1 2. The action involves common questions of law or fact. ................ 20 2 3. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the class. ........................ 21 3 4. Plaintiffs and their counsel have and will continue to fairly and 4 adequately protect the interests of the class. ................................ 21 5 B. The class meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) for settlement 6 purposes. .......................................................................................... 22 7 C. The settlement provided the best method of notice practicable. .......... 23 8 THE COURT SHOULD AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS ........... 24 9 I. The Court’s role in evaluating the negotiated fee. ........................................ 24 10 II. Plaintiffs are entitled to a fee under California law. ..................................... 25 11 III. The negotiated fee is reasonable under California’s lodestar method............ 25 12 A. Class Counsel reasonably devoted over ten thousand hours to 13 prosecuting this litigation over the past three years. ............................ 26 14 B. Class Counsel’s rates fall within the range prevailing in the community 15 and have been approved by many courts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Case: 13-16918, 05/30/2014, ID: 9114889, Dktentry: 78-1, Page 1 of 64
    Case: 13-16918, 05/30/2014, ID: 9114889, DktEntry: 78-1, Page 1 of 64 Case No. 13-16819 (Consolidated with Nos. 13-16918, 13-16919, 13-16929, 13-16936, 13-17028, 13-17097) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANGEL FRALEY, ET AL., Plaintiffs and Appellees, C.M.D., ET AL., Intervenors, Plaintiffs, and Appellees, JO BATMAN, ET AL., Objectors and Appellants v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant and Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California No. 11-cv-0126, Hon. Richard Seeborg, presiding ANSWERING BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES SUSAN MAINZER, ET AL. THE ARNS LAW FIRM JONATHAN JAFFE LAW Robert S. Arns (SBN 65071) Jonathan M. Jaffe, Esq. (SBN 267012) 3055 Hillegass Avenue Jonathan E. Davis (SBN 191346) Berkeley, CA 94705 Steven R. Weinmann (SBN 190956) Telephone: (510) 725-4293 515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 495-7800 Facsimile: (415) 495-7888 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Case: 13-16918, 05/30/2014, ID: 9114889, DktEntry: 78-1, Page 2 of 64 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ............................................................. 1 II. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 III. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................... 7 IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................. 10 A. Background ................................................................................................. 10 B. Settlement Negotiations
    [Show full text]
  • Options for Federal Judicial Screening Committees Second Edition September 2011 (2D
    Options for Federal Judicial Screening Committees Second Edition September 2011 (2d. ed.) OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEES: Where They Are in Place, How They Operate, and What to Consider in Establishing and Managing Them The Governance Institute, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver (IAALS), and Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution have revised the June 2010 first edition of this guide, and will continue to issue revisions periodically. It provides United States senators, other federal legislators, and their staffs with information about creating committees to screen potential judicial and law enforcement position nominees; provides them and committee members with information about committee operations; and provides others interested in federal judicial selection with information about an often- overlooked aspect of the process. It is not a “best practices” manual, in part because relatively little is known about how such committees work and even less about what seems to work best. The most current version of the guide is available at: www.du.edu/legalinstitute and www.brookings.edu/experts/wheelerr.aspx This guide was authored principally by: Russell Wheeler, president of the Governance Institute and a Visiting Fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies program. He has served on the IAALS Board of Advisors since its creation in 2006. Rebecca Love Kourlis, executive director of IAALS. She served on Senator Ken Salazar’s screening committee and co-chaired the committee that Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet appointed to screen candidates for two District of Colorado vacancies. (Malia Reddick, director of judicial programs for the Institute, assists with ongoing revisions.) The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) is a national, independent research center dedicated to continuous improvement of the process and culture of the civil justice system.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern District of California Northern District of California Lawyer
    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LAWYER REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT 2017-2018 Submitted by Miriam Kim (Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP) and Elizabeth Pipkin (McManis Faulkner), 2018-2019 Committee Co-Chairs. I. Introduction: This report will cover judicial developments in the Northern District since August 2017, our District Conference, and other activities of the Lawyer Representative Committee during that time. II. Judicial Appointments and Retirements A. The Northern District continues to enjoy its full complement of active district- court judges. Together with the continued strong contributions of our five senior-status judges and 12 full- time magistrate judges, the District is well prepared to serve the interest of justice in our federal system. B. In August 2017, Chief Judge Emeritus Thelton Henderson took inactive status after serving 37 years on the bench, including his 7-year term as the court’s Chief Judge from 1990 to 1997. The court held a retirement celebration at the San Francisco courthouse, in the Ceremonial Courtroom, which was renamed in his honor as the Thelton E. Henderson Ceremonial Courtroom. C. In June 2017, Bankruptcy Judge Alan Jaroslovsky retired. He served over 30 years on the Bankruptcy Court, including his tenure as Chief Bankruptcy Judge from 2011 to 2014. D. In November 2017, Magistrate Judge Vadas retired after serving in the Eureka Division for 13 years. The court appointed Robert Illman to that magistrate-judge position. E. In June 2018, Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd will retire after 16 years on the bench in the San Jose Division. The court has selected Virginia K. DeMarchi, formerly a partner at the law firm of Fenwick & West LLP, to join the Northern District bench as a Magistrate Judge upon Judge Lloyd’s retirement.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit 4 Case 5:18-Cv-06164-EJD Document 88-4 Filed 09/28/20 Page 2 of 11
    Case 5:18-cv-06164-EJD Document 88-4 Filed 09/28/20 Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 4 Case 5:18-cv-06164-EJD Document 88-4 Filed 09/28/20 Page 2 of 11 All dollar amounts are in millions Primary Cross-Check % of Common Multiplier Case Name Cite Judge Fee Order Date Case Type Fee $ Approved Calculation Common Fund $ Lodestar $ Method Fund Approved Approved Method Craft v. Cty. of San 1 Bernardino,, 1124 624 F. Supp. 2d 1113 Stephen G. Larson April 1, 2008 Civil Rights $ 6.375 CF Lodestar $ 25.648 25% $ 1.200 5.20 2 Kurihara v. Best Buy Co. 2010 WL 11575623 Marilyn Hall Patel April 1, 2010 Wage & Hour $ 0.898 Lodestar $ 5.000 6% $ 0.718 1.25 Garner v. State Farm Breach od 3 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 2010 WL 1687829 Claudia Wilken April 22, 2010 Contract $ 4.500 CF Lodestar $ 15.000 30% <2 4 Briggs v. United States 2010 WL 1759457 William Alsup April 30, 2010 debt collection $ 1.120 Lodestar $ 7.400 $ 1.119 1.00 Privay/Data 5 Lane v. Facebook, Inc. 2010 WL 2076916 Richard Seeborg May 24, 2010 Breach $ 2.322 Lodestar $ 9.510 24% $ 1.161 2.00 6 In re LDK Solar Sec. Litig. 2010 WL 3001384 William Alsup July 29, 2010 Securities $ 16.000 $ 16.000 13.75% $ 7.600 0.29 In re WAL–MART STORES, INC. WAGE AND 7 HOUR LITIGATION 2011 WL 31266 Saundra Brown Armstrong January 5, 2011 Wage & Hour $ 23.220 CF Lodestar $86-$43 27% of ceiling ~$16.6 1.40 Chu v.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case No
    Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 163 Filed 07/02/21 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:20213 1 Julian Burns King (Bar No. 298617) [email protected] 2 Elliot J. Siegel (Bar No. 286798) 3 [email protected] KING & SIEGEL LLP 4 724 S. Spring Street, Ste. 201 5 Los Angeles, California 90014 Telephone: (213) 465-4802 6 Facsimile: (213) 465-4803 7 8 Daniel Hutchinson (Bar No. 239458) [email protected] 9 Lin Y. Chan (Bar No. 255027) 10 [email protected] LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & 11 BERNSTEIN, LLP 12 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 13 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 Marcie Le and Karen Dao, individu- Case No. 8:18-cv-01548-DOC (ADSx) ally and on behalf of all others similarly 19 Hon. David O. Carter situated, 20 Special Master Hon. Jay C. Gandhi (Ret.) Plaintiffs, 21 v. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF 22 Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation; MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR 23 Walgreen Pharmacy Services Mid- west, LLC, an Illinois limited liability FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS 24 company; and Walgreens Boots Alli- ACTION SETTLEMENT 25 ance, a Delaware corporation, [Declarations of Elliot J. Siegel, Daniel Defendants. M. Hutchinson, and Bryan Valdez; 26 [Proposed] Order filed concurrently] 27 Hearing Date: August 2, 2021 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01548 Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 163 Filed 07/02/21 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:20214 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on August 2, 2021 at 8:30 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Career News Archives Interviews)
    August 30, 2016 OCI and Resume Collection Session: Fall OCI 2016 (Sept 26) Interview Location: King Hall Bid Deadline: September 8 at 11:00pm Session: Fall OCI 2016 (Alaska State Courts) Interview Location: King Hall Bid Deadline (Symplicity): September 12 at 11:00pm Letter of Recommendation Deadline (Faculty to provide letters to Faculty Support): August 31 by 5pm Alumni Directory Resources for OCI and Other Interviews Job Search Resources In preparation for your upcoming interviews, please view the intranet Symplicity video presentation that discusses both screening and callback interviews (the second half of the video deals with callback Career News Archives interviews). Also available on the intranet in the career services resources section are two separate checklists for screening interviews and callback interviews. Archive of Recorded CSO Presentations If you have any questions regarding the scheduling of your interviews, please contact Kim Thomas at [email protected]. If you have questions about your upcoming interviews or the process, please Walk-In Hours: reach out to any of the career counselors - Natalie Butcher ([email protected]), Shannon Kahn ([email protected]), 11 AM - Noon & 4 - 5 PM, Tim Griffiths ([email protected]), or Craig Compton Monday - Thursday; 11 AM - 1 PM, Friday ([email protected]). Need more than a few Great Resource for Employer Research - Vault! minutes? Call 530.752.6574 to As you navigate OCI, we want to remind you to research the schedule an appointment. employers. We recently subscribed to Vault, which is a great resource for you to use when analyzing law firms and other employers. Here is the link for UC Davis students to access the exclusive Vault content: http://access.vault.com/career-insider-login.aspx?aid=256816.
    [Show full text]
  • President Donald Trump and Federal Bench Diversity
    Washington and Lee Law Review Online Volume 74 Issue 2 Article 7 5-3-2018 President Donald Trump and Federal Bench Diversity Carl Tobias University of Richmond School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr-online Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Carl Tobias, President Donald Trump and Federal Bench Diversity, 74 WASH. & LEE L. REV. ONLINE 400 (2018), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr-online/vol74/iss2/7 This Response is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review Online by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP AND FEDERAL BENCH DIVERSITY Carl Tobias∗ Abstract President Donald Trump constantly reminds United States citizens about the myriad circuit and district court appointments that his White House is making to the federal judiciary. Last September, Trump proposed the seventh “wave,” which included three people of color among sixteen judicial nominees. This wave permitted the administration to triple the number of ethnic minority picks whom it had selected, which means that the Executive Branch has proffered ten persons of color in 113 appeals court and district court submissions, yet none is a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) individual. Nevertheless, a problematic pattern, which implicates a stunning lack of ethnic- minority, LGBT, and female nominees rather swiftly arose, even though the administration is relatively nascent.
    [Show full text]
  • Filling the Ninth Circuit Vacancies
    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 27 (2018-2019) Issue 4 Article 6 May 2019 Filling the Ninth Circuit Vacancies Carl Tobias Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Judges Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons Repository Citation Carl Tobias, Filling the Ninth Circuit Vacancies, 27 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1113 (2019), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol27/iss4/6 Copyright c 2019 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj FILLING THE NINTH CIRCUIT VACANCIES Carl Tobias* ABSTRACT Upon Republican President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit experienced some pressing appellate vacancies, which the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) carefully identified as “judicial emergencies” because the tribunal resolves a massive docket. Last year’s death of the iconic liberal champion Stephen Reinhardt and the late 2017 departure of libertarian former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski—who both assumed pivotal circuit leadership roles over numerous years—and a few of their colleagues’ decision to leave active court service thereafter, mean the tribunal presently confronts four judicial emergencies and resolves most slowly the largest number of appeals. The 2016 and 2018 federal election cycles—which render uncertain the party that will capture the presidency and the Senate at the polls in 2020—show that more posts could open when additional jurists determine that they will change status across the Trump Administration. Nevertheless, striking partisanship will frustrate the effort to appoint Ninth Circuit judges.
    [Show full text]
  • Career News Archives
    September 20, 2016 3L Job Search Strategies: A Roadmap for Fall 2016 - September 21 Please join Lisa Carlock and Assistant Dean Craig Compton from Career Services on Wednesday, September 21st at Noon in Room 1301 for an important workshop for 3Ls seeking post-graduate employment. In this workshop,"3L Job Search Strategies: A Roadmap for Fall 2016," we will discuss what steps job seeking 3Ls should follow in their final year of law school in order to maximize their job search efforts and secure post-graduate employment. Attendees will learn how job application timelines for Alumni Directory post-graduate positions differ from 1L and 2L job searches, why increasing networking efforts is critical during the fall semester, and Job Search Resources how and when to apply for post-graduate government, firm, and public interest positions. Symplicity Contact Lisa Carlock at [email protected] for more information. Career News Archives New OCI Employer Archive of Recorded CSO Presentations Session: Fall OCI 2016 (Oct 5) Employer: Lozano Smith (Sacramento) Interview Location: King Hall Walk-In Hours: Class Level: 3L Bid Deadline: Sept. 22 at 11pm 11 AM - Noon & 4 - 5 PM, Monday - Thursday; 11 AM - 1 PM, Friday Judicial Clerkship Information Session for 2Ls - Thursday, September 22 Need more than a few minutes? Class of 2018 -- Are you interested in a post-graduate judicial Call 530.752.6574 to clerkship? A judicial clerkship provides unparalleled legal schedule an appointment. experience, prestige and resume enhancement, broad exposure to the law, a great lifestyle, and the chance to build a relationship with a judge that will last a lifetime.
    [Show full text]
  • Career News Archives Will Be at King Hall on September 7Th to Discuss the Specific Benefits of Being a Marine Judge Advocate
    September 6, 2016 OCI and Resume Collection Session: Fall OCI 2016 (Sept 26) Interview Location: King Hall Bid Deadline: September 8 at 11:00pm Session: Fall OCI 2016 (Alaska State Courts) Interview Location: King Hall Bid Deadline (Symplicity): September 12 at 11:00pm Alumni Directory U.S. Marine Corps JAG Informational Session - September 7 Job Search Resources 2Ls and 3Ls -- U.S. Marine Corps JAG officers, Captain Josh Pretti, Symplicity Selection Officer for the Sacramento Area; Lieutenant Kate Casey, Judge Advocate out of Marine Corps Air Station Miramar; and Gunnery Sergeant Lariosa, Officer Selection Assistant for Sacramento Career News Archives will be at King Hall on September 7th to discuss the specific benefits of being a Marine Judge Advocate. Archive of Recorded CSO Presentations September 7 King Hall, Room 2320 12:00-1:00pm Walk-In Hours: The presentation will cover: 11 AM - Noon & 4 - 5 PM, Common Areas of Practice for Marine Corps Judge Advocates Monday - Thursday; -Criminal Litigation. 11 AM - 1 PM, Friday -Operational and International Law. -Civil Law. Need more than a few Marine Corps Officer Training minutes? -Leading Marines: Officer First, Judge Advocate Second. Call 530.752.6574 to -Officer Candidate School (OCS). schedule an appointment. -The Basic School (TBS). -Naval Justice School (NJS). -Timeline. Incentives to Become a Judge Advocate -Continuing Education. -Loan Repayment and Other Benefits. -Professional Success after the Marines Judicial Clerkship Information Session for 2Ls - Thursday, September 22 Class of 2018 -- Are you interested in a post-graduate judicial clerkship? A judicial clerkship provides unparalleled legal experience, prestige and resume enhancement, broad exposure to the law, a great lifestyle, and the chance to build a relationship with a judge that will last a lifetime.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Overview of President Obama's Asian American Judicial Nominees in 2010
    A Brief Overview of President Obama's Asian American Judicial Nominees in 2010 Jonathan Jew-Limt INTRODUCTIONtt In 2009, President Obama made history by selecting the first Chinese American woman to sit on the federal bench (Dolly Gee), and the first Vietnamese American Article III judge (Jackie Nguyen).' Obama also nominated Denny Chin to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, though Chin has not yet been confirmed. 2 This year may prove to be an even greater turning point for the representation of Asian Americans in the federal judiciary. As of March, Obama has nominated three Asian Americans to serve in the federal judiciary: Edward Chen, Lucy Koh, and Goodwin Liu.' Together, the three candidates represent not only a wide- ranging set of professional qualifications, but also a unique collection of personal backgrounds that exemplifies the diversity of the Asian American t J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2011; A.B., Princeton University, 2004. I would like to thank the editors of the Asian American Law Journal for allowing me the opportunity to publish this piece. I am particularly grateful to Jennifer Murakami, Kerry Kumabe, Jennifer Lee, Tracy Leong, and Reinier Pualengco, for their invaluable contributions to this article. I am quite fortunate to have each of them as a friend and colleague. ti Editor's Note: As of November 2010, Dolly Gee, Jackie Nguyen, Denny Chin, and Lucy Koh have been confirmed by the Senate. President Obama renominated Edward Chen and Goodwin Liu in September 2010. 1. Hector Bercerra, Senate Confirms L.A. Attorney Dolly Gee as Judge; She'll Be First Chinese- American Woman on Federal Bench, L.A.
    [Show full text]
  • President Donald Trump's War on Federal Judicial Diversity
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2019 President Donald Trump's War on Federal Judicial Diversity Carl Tobias University of Richmond - School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/law-faculty-publications Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Carl Tobias, President Donald Trump's War on Federal Judicial Diversity, 54 Wake Forest L. Rev. 531 (2019). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S WAR ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL DIVERSITY Carl Tobias• In Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, the candidate promised to nominate and confirm federal judges who would possess ideologically conservative perspectives. Across President Trump's first twenty-seven months, the chief executive implemented numerous actions to effectuate his campaign pledge. Indeed, federal judicial selection may be the area in which President Trump has achieved the most substantial success throughout his first twenty-seven months in office, as many of Trump's supporters within and outside the government recognize. Nevertheless, the chief executive's achievements, principally when nominating and confirming stalwart conservatives to the appellate court bench, have imposed numerous critical detrimental effects. Most important for the purposes of this Article, a disturbing pattern that implicates a stunning paucity of minority nominees materialized rather quickly. Moreover, in the apparent rush to install staunch conservative ideologues in the maximum possible number of appeals court vacancies, the Republican White House and Senate majority have eviscerated numerous invaluable, longstanding federal judicial selection conventions.
    [Show full text]