DOCSLIB.ORG

Preliminary Approval of Settlement and for Certification of a Settlement Class

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Preliminary Approval of Settlement and for Certification of a Settlement Class Case 3:16-cv-00467-SMY Document 240 Filed 09/22/20 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #5714 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Sheilar Smith, Kasandra Anton, Bonnie Bailey, Peggy Wise, and June Schwierjohn, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the OSF Plans, Plaintiffs, v. No. 3:16-cv-00467-SMY-RJD OSF HealthCare System; The Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis Employees Pension Plan Administrative Committee; and Retirement Committee for the Retirement Plan for Employees of Saint Anthony’s Health Center, Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION SEEKING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND FOR CERTIFICATION OF A SETTLEMENT CLASS Plaintiffs respectfully submit the following Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of the Settlement Class, Appointment of Plaintiffs’ Counsel as Class Counsel, and Approval of the Proposed Notice of Settlement and Class Action Settlement Procedure (“Motion”), and a Memorandum in Support. For the reasons set forth below, in the accompanying declaration and the exhibits attached hereto, and in all pleadings and documents on file in this action, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an Order: (1) granting preliminary approval of the $25,000,000.00 Settlement and $1,750,000.00 Fee Award memorialized in the Settlement Agreement; (2) conditionally certifying the Settlement Class defined in the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e); 1 Case 3:16-cv-00467-SMY Document 240 Filed 09/22/20 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #5715 (3) appointing Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as Class Counsel; (4) appointing Sheilar Smith, Kasandra Anton, Bonnie Bailey, Peggy Wise, and June Schwierjohn as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class; and (5) approving the form and manner of distributing the proposed Notice and Claim Form. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement or the findings and rulings set forth in the Proposed Order. The Parties respectfully request that the Court set a final fairness hearing on or after one- hundred (100) days from the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order1. DATED this 21st day of September 2020. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. /s/ Laura R. Gerber Lynn Lincoln Sarko Laura R. Gerber KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Tel.: (206) 623-1900 / Fax: (206) 623-3384 [email protected] [email protected] Ron Kilgard KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 3101 North Central Ave., Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Tel.: (602) 248-0088 / Fax: (602) 248-2822 [email protected] 1 Pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d), the date of the Fairness Hearing must be at least ninety (90) days after notices are served on the appropriate State and Federal officials. 2 Case 3:16-cv-00467-SMY Document 240 Filed 09/22/20 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #5716 Karen L. Handorf Michelle C. Yau Julie S. Selesnick COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20005 Tel.: (202) 408-4600 / Fax: (202) 408-4699 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Class Counsel Donna Siegel Moffa Joseph H. Meltzer KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Tel: (610) 667-7706 [email protected] [email protected] Mark P. Kindall IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP 29 South Main Street West Hartford, CT 06107 Tel: (860) 493-6292 [email protected] Matthew H. Armstrong, ARDC #6226591 ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC 8816 Manchester Road, No. 109 St. Louis, MO 63144 Tel: (314) 258-0212 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs 3 Case 3:16-cv-00467-SMY Document 240 Filed 09/22/20 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #5717 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 22, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which in turn sent notice to all counsel of record. /s/ Laura R. Gerber Laura R. Gerber 4 Case 3:16-cv-00467-SMY Document 240-1 Filed 09/22/20 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #5718 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Sheilar Smith, Kasandra Anton, Bonnie Bailey, Peggy Wise, and June Schwierjohn, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the OSF Plans, Plaintiffs, v. No. 3:16-cv-00467-SMY-RJD OSF HealthCare System; The Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis Employees Pension Plan Administrative Committee; and Retirement Committee for the Retirement Plan for Employees of Saint Anthony’s Health Center, Defendants. DECLARATION OF LAURA R. GERBER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT I, Laura R. Gerber, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 1. I am a Partner with the law firm of Keller Rohrback L.L.P. (“Keller Rohrback”) and a member in good standing of the bar of the state of Washington and admitted to practice in numerous federal courts, including the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. I represent Plaintiffs1 and the proposed Settlement Class in the above-captioned action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below and, if called as witness, I could and would testify 1 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Declaration shall have the same meaning ascribed to them in the Class Action Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to this Declaration. Case 3:16-cv-00467-SMY Document 240-1 Filed 09/22/20 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #5719 competently thereto. 2. I am a member of Keller Rohrback’s Employee Benefits and Retirement Security Practice Group and one of the attorneys responsible for directing the above-captioned case at the Firm. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Class Action Settlement Agreement for the case. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a draft [Proposed] Order Preliminarily Approving the Settlement, Certifying the Class, Approving Notice to the Class, and Scheduling Final Approval Hearing (“Preliminary Approval Order”). 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a draft Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Final Approval Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses and Incentive Awards to Named Plaintiffs (“Draft Notice of Proposed Settlement”). 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is the draft [Proposed] Order and Final Judgment. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the firm resumes of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC (“Cohen Milstein”) and Keller Rohrback (collectively, “Class Counsel”). 8. Keller Rohrback and Cohen Milstein discovered and developed this area of the law and dedicated several years to developing the legal theory challenging whether non-church entities could properly maintain their pension plans as “church plans” exempt from ERISA. Both firms devoted many hours to researching the definition of a “church plan” found in both ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(33) and 26 U.S.C. § 414(e), including the statutory text, its interaction with other provisions in the United States Code, the legislative history of the statute, and agency and court interpretations of the statute. Ultimately, Class Counsel began challenging 2 Case 3:16-cv-00467-SMY Document 240-1 Filed 09/22/20 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #5720 the contention by a number of religiously affiliated hospitals that their pension plans were exempt from ERISA. This is one of the cases that arose from that investigation. 9. Prior to filing the claims on behalf of the Plaintiffs in this case, Class Counsel extensively investigated all publicly available information regarding the Defendant OSF Healthcare System, and the other defendants. This included review and analysis of publicly available financial statements, information given to the participants of the OSF Plans, and interviews of several OSF Plan participants. 10. On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff Sheilar Smith, represented by Class Counsel, and Armstrong Law Firm LLC, Local Counsel, filed this case in this district. Class Action Compl., ECF No. 1. The case was amended shortly thereafter to add Plaintiff Kasandra Anton. First Am. Class Action Compl., ECF No. 7. Soon thereafter, another case, with other plaintiffs, represented by other counsel, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (“Kessler Topaz”) and Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP (“Izard Kindall”), filed a similar case in the Central District of Illinois. Complaint, Bailey v. OSF HealthCare Sys., No. 16-1137 (C.D. Ill. May 3, 2016), ECF No. 1. Eventually, the Bailey plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their case were added as plaintiffs to the Smith case. See Bailey v. OSF HealthCare Sys., No. 1:16-cv-01137-SLD-TSH, 2017 WL 4319113 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2017). See also Fourth Am. Class Action Compl., ECF No. 138. 11. This case was litigated over four years until settling. Discovery commenced in the fall of 2016 but was stayed shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision in Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, 137 S. Ct. 546 (2016). The issue presented to the Supreme Court in Advocate was whether, as Plaintiffs alleged here, and as the lower courts had held, a church plan must be established by a church in order to qualify as an ERISA-exempt church plan. The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 5, 2017, holding that pension plans need not be established by churches 3 Case 3:16-cv-00467-SMY Document 240-1 Filed 09/22/20 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #5721 in order to qualify as ERISA-exempt church plans, so long as other conditions necessary for church plan status are satisfied.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Declaration in Support of Preliminary Approval
    Case 2:14-cv-01720-JCC Document 51 Filed 10/20/16 Page 1 of 6 1 The Honorable John C. Coughenour 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 LINDA GRIFFITH and JEANETTE WENZL, 10 on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of the Providence Health & Services No. 2:14-cv-01720-JCC 11 Cash Balance Retirement Plan, 12 Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF LYNN LINCOLN v. SARKO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ 13 UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES; PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 14 RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE; SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 15 ELLEN WOLF; JOHN and JANE DOES 1-20, inclusive, MEMBERS OF THE RETIREMENT 16 PLANS COMMITTEE; JOHN or JANE DOE 21, PLAN DIRECTOR; HUMAN 17 RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; JOHN and JANE DOES 22- 18 40, inclusive, MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN 19 RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; ROD HOCHMAN; BOARD 20 OF DIRECTORS OF PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES; MICHAEL HOLCOMB; 21 CHAUNCEY BOYLE; ISIAAH CRAWFORD; MARTHA DIAZ ASZKENAZY; PHYLLIS 22 HUGHES; SALLYE LINER; KIRBY 23 McDONALD; DAVE OLSEN; AL PARRISH; CAROLINA REYES; PETER J. SNOW; 24 MICHAEL A. STEIN; CHARLES WATTS; BOB WILSON; JOHN and JANE DOES 41-50, 25 inclusive, 26 Defendants. 27 DECLARATION OF LYNN LINCOLN LAW OFFICES OF LAW OFFICES OF K E L L E R R O H R B A C K L . L . P . C O H E N M I L S T E I N S E L L E R S & T OLL, PLLC. SARKO IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W .
    [Show full text]
  • William Alsup
    William Alsup An Oral History Conducted by Leah McGarrigle 2016-2017 William Alsup An Oral History Conducted by Leah McGarrigle 2016-2017 Copyright © 2021 William Alsup, Leah McGarrigle All rights reserved. Copyright in the manuscript and recording is owned by William Alsup and Leah McGarrigle, who have made the materials available under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC 4.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: "William Alsup: An Oral History Conducted by Leah McGarrigle, 2016-2017”. Transcription by Christine Sinnott Book design by Anna McGarrigle Judge William Alsup was born in Mississippi in 1945 and lived there until he left for Harvard Law School in 1967. At Harvard, he earned a law degree plus a master’s degree in public policy from the Kennedy School of Government. In 1971–72, he clerked for Justice William O. Douglas of the United States Supreme Court and worked with him on the Abortion Cases and the “Trees Have Standing” case, among others. Alsup and his young family then returned to Mississippi, where he practiced civil rights law, went broke, and eventually relocated to San Francisco. There he be- came a trial lawyer, a practice interrupted by two years of appel- late practice as an Assistant to the Solicitor General in the United States Department of Justice (from 1978–80). In 1999, President Bill Clinton nominated him and the Senate conirmed him as a United States District Judge in San Francisco. He took the oath of oice on August 17, 1999, and serves still on active status.
    [Show full text]
  • Other Was Being Abused to Death; My Father Locked in Nursing Home in Texas (2013-2019 Death)
    AMENDED (3) No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LINDA ANN WRIGHT -PETITIONER vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. -RESPONDENT(S) ON PETITION FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS LINDA ANN WRIGHT 300 Elizabeth Drive, Apartment 3108 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 15220 (4121 715-7733 IV. QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Was there a concerted effort, from 2007-Present to deny petitioner her Due Process, under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the U.S.? 2. If the Petitioner is not an Attorney, and several Judges consider her lacking, should they have Authorized Counsel since she produced the facts? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the denial of Disqualification of Judges deny the Petitioner, Due Process and Redress in not having an investigation? 4. Was the Chief Judge serving as counsel for the Named Judges? Should she have recused herself, was she involved in the naming of the Federal Building, named after one of the Judges? 5. Was Judge Owens while serving in the Texas Supreme Court, aware of Case No. 15-00214, in USDC Texas Northern District, did it affect her Decision? 6. Did the Fifth Circuit Appellate Review Board in not calling for an investigation into the facts submitted by Appellant/ Petitioner Obstructed Justice and Rule Article V, 28 U..C § 358., therefor denying Due Process, Redress? 7. Was there a concerted effort by California, Texas, and the U.S. Courts, to deny Petitioner’s Constitutional, Civil, Financial Rights as an American Citizen? 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Legal History
    WESTERN LEGAL HISTORY THE JOURNAL OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HISTORICAL SOCIETY VOLUME 9, NUMBER I WINTER/SPRING 1996 Western Legal History is published semi-annually, in spring and fall, by the Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society, 125 S. Grand Avenue, Pasadena, California 91105, (818) 795-0266. The journal explores, analyzes, and presents the history of law, the legal profession, and the courts-particularly the federal courts-in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Western Legal History is sent to members of the Society as well as members of affiliated legal historical societies in the Ninth Circuit. Membership is open to all. Membership dues (individuals and institutions): Patron, $1,000 or more; Steward, $750-$999; Sponsor, $500-$749; Grantor, $250-$499; Sustaining, $100- $249; Advocate, $50-$99; Subscribing (non-members of the bench and bar, lawyers in practice fewer than five years, libraries, and academic institutions), $25-$49; Membership dues (law firms and corporations): Founder, $3,000 or more; Patron, $1,000-$2,999; Steward, $750-$999; Sponsor, $500-$749; Grantor, $250-$499. For information regarding membership, back issues of Western Legal History, and other society publications and programs, please write or telephone the editor. POSTMASTER: Please send change of address to: Editor Western Legal History 125 S. Grand Avenue Pasadena, California 91105 Western Legal History disclaims responsibility for statements made by authors and for accuracy of footnotes. Copyright, (01996, Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society ISSN 0896-2189 The Editorial Board welcomes unsolicited manuscripts, books for review, and reconumendations for the journal.
    [Show full text]
  • Choosing the Next Supreme Court Justice: an Empirical Ranking of Judicial Performance†
    Choosing the Next Supreme Court Justice: † An Empirical Ranking of Judicial Performance Stephen Choi* ** Mitu Gulati † © 2004 Stephen Choi and Mitu Gulati. * Roger J. Traynor Professor, U.C. Berkeley Law School (Boalt Hall). ** Professor of Law, Georgetown University. Kindly e-mail comments to [email protected] and [email protected]. Erin Dengan, Édeanna Johnson-Chebbi, Margaret Rodgers, Rishi Sharma, Jennifer Dukart, and Alice Kuo provided research assistance. Kimberly Brickell deserves special thanks for her work. Aspects of this draft benefited from discussions with Alex Aleinikoff, Scott Baker, Lee Epstein, Tracey George, Prea Gulati, Vicki Jackson, Mike Klarman, Kim Krawiec, Kaleb Michaud, Un Kyung Park, Greg Mitchell, Jim Rossi, Ed Kitch, Paul Mahoney, Jim Ryan, Paul Stefan, George Triantis, Mark Seidenfeld, and Eric Talley. For comments on the draft itself, we are grateful to Michael Bailey, Suzette Baker, Bill Bratton, James Brudney, Steve Bundy, Brannon Denning, Phil Frickey, Michael Gerhardt, Steve Goldberg, Pauline Kim, Bill Marshall, Don Langevoort, Judith Resnik, Keith Sharfman, Steve Salop, Michael Seidman, Michael Solimine, Gerry Spann, Mark Tushnet, David Vladeck, Robin West, Arnold Zellner, Kathy Zeiler, Todd Zywicki and participants at workshops at Berkeley, Georgetown, Virginia, FSU, and UNC - Chapel Hill. Given the unusually large number of people who have e-mailed us with comments on this project, it is likely that there are some who we have inadvertently failed to thank. Our sincerest apologies to them. Disclosure: Funding for this project was provided entirely by our respective law schools. One of us was a law clerk to two of the judges in the sample: Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit and Sandra Lynch of the First Circuit.
    [Show full text]
  • (“ERISA”) Decisions As They Were Reported on Westlaw Between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016
    DRAFT * This document is a case summary compilation of select Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) decisions as they were reported on Westlaw between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016. Nothing in this document constitutes legal advice. Case summaries prepared by Michelle L. Roberts, Partner, Roberts Bartolic LLP, 1050 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 105, Alameda, CA 94501. © Roberts Bartolic LLP I. Attorneys’ Fees .................................................................................................................. 11 A. First Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 11 B. Second Circuit ................................................................................................................................. 11 C. Third Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 14 D. Fourth Circuit .................................................................................................................................. 14 E. Fifth Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 15 F. Sixth Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 16 G. Seventh Circuit ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • September(27+29,(2013( Hon
    Jus4ces(and( Judges( Women&Transforming&Our& Communi1es&and&the&World& September(27+29,(2013( Hon. Ruth I. Abrams Class of 1956 “… it was clear one judge didn’t want me in the courtroom [even though I was the Assistant DA in Middlesex County]. He said I could not be in the courtroom without a hat and white gloves. The white hat and gloves were an excuse. Do you know how dirty the old Middlesex County courthouse was?” Honorable Ruth I. Abrams (Ret.) Justice, First Female Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Harvard Law School Class of 1956 Radcliffe College (A.B., 1953) Hon. Cynthia G. Aaron '84 Hon. Sharon V. Burrell '82 Hon. Mary Grace Diehl '77 Hon. Justice Arden '70 Hon. Zoe A. Bush '79 Hon. Raya S. Dreben '54 Hon. Christine M. Arguello '80 Hon. V. Buthelezi-Khampepe '82 Hon. Fernande R. V. Duffly '78 Hon. Deborah A. Batts '72 Hon. Diane O. Campbell '76 Hon. Antoinette L. Dupont '54 Hon. Carol Berkman '67 Hon. Yvonne E. Campos '88 Hon. Jacquelyn P. Eckert '94 Hon. Marie-France Bich '80 Hon. Susan L. Carney '77 Hon. Maryanne E. Elliott '90 Hon. Cathy Bissoon '93 Hon. Denise Jefferson Casper '94 Hon. Christine C. Ewell '86 Hon. Catherine C. Blake '75 Hon. Shelley C. Chapman '81 Hon. Gail Ruderman Feuer '84 Hon. Karen J. Brandt '79 Hon. Dorothy Chin-Brandt '75 Hon. Dale S. Fischer '80 Hon. F. S. Brenneman '53 Hon. Cynthia J. Cohen '75 Hon. Fern Fisher '78 Hon. Eileen M. Brewer '87 Hon. Laura A. Cordero '88 Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court's Role in Interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 44 Hastings L.J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 44 | Issue 5 Article 3 1-1993 The uprS eme Court's Role in Interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Karen Nelson Moore Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Karen Nelson Moore, The Supreme Court's Role in Interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 44 Hastings L.J. 1039 (1993). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol44/iss5/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Supreme Court's Role in Interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by KAREN NELSON MOORE* During the last decade the Supreme Court has become increasingly fond of using the plain meaning doctrine1 to interpret the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Indeed, during the last several terms of the Court, a number of key decisions interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Proce- dure, especially those interpreting infamous Rule 11,2 have linged on a majority's view of the plain meaning of a Rule's language. Although this development parallels a similar development in statutory construction, it is particularly puzzling in the context of the Federal Rules,3 which are created under the Court's supervision and are approved by the Court before becoming effective. While the Court has been heading towards a plain meaning ap- proach to analyzing the Federal Rules, the rulemaking process has been undergoing some change.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Law Judicial Clerks List
    Texas Law Judicial Clerks List This list includes Texas Law alumni who reported their clerkships to the Judicial Clerkship Program – or whose names were published in the Judicial Yellow Book or Martindale Hubbell – and includes those who clerked during the recent past for judges who are currently active. There are some judges and courts for which few Texas Law alumni have clerked – in these cases we have listed alumni who clerked further back or who clerked for judges who are no longer active. Dates following a law clerk or judge’s name indicate year of graduation from the University of Texas School of Law. Retired or deceased judges, or those who has been appointed to another court, are listed at the end of each court section and denoted (*). Those who wish to use the information on this list will need to independently verify the information being used. Federal Courts U.S. Supreme Court ............................................................................................................. 2 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals ............................................................................................. 3 First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit Eleventh Circuit Federal Circuit District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Courts of Limited Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 9 Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims U.S. Court of Federal Claims U.S. Court of International Trade U.S. Tax Court U.S. District Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ............................................................ 10 State Courts State Appellate Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ........................................................ 25 State District & County Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • IC'':I;~~I'siapa~G~CO~7.J
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL EXTERNSHIPS Application Procedures for Summer 2011 1. All students interested in submitting applications for externship positions in the'~U;;"i'I';";;~I';';I";';'D";;I;';(i"( ~ uri' "'"""'"",,,,,,,,,,u,,,",z",,,;,, United States District Court ~~~~~!;~!i~ ~1l.Whlt.... Otd...... Ri_W.Wd,"'I1. 0 ....... toon COURT Northern District of California PIlBLl('ANNOW('.MENTS INFORU4.TlON •.._-_ __ " _--_ _._. __.._--------._- .._-..__ ._._----_ _,-­ Mie4"etIC'':i;~~i' SiAPA~G~CO~7.J~"'~>n~[Anado Mornlef y. J.:I.illim,"!.u..LCV~~~=~_ 06..:QQlli..l may 'needcati'on to at.­ submit an online Ptnyv. SdlWMUp~SRg-CI)$l-2292V'il.W<ClWkr..q~tQPrepe,wonS} appli fTC If. PrittwettllC <lb4Jli.\.Mt t! al. C09·2407 RM\Il USA'll BOnd! 3:Q?C!.Qrlln http://www.cand.uscourtS.goV/. ~';~<:'C':I:b;,:."w"""""<l'ri!"Q''''WWMl RULES & ORDERS · t . t h N~lieeCOflcemitlgR!p'itl':'l\o)fCivtlJdk61Ru1-e7.3 At th e N0 rthern DIS rIC orne NOlj"C""m')OA",,;oo.rr,..,,.Or,,,,N,62,a,,"",,, ~ FlliDg oCDowmenr:s Under Sll21 ............... · k h "E N~lice'CQnwningRevjD."D,ofCMto~-:dfl.u!ts1-172-2a:ld12·3 ~:;:dc'::~t~lLrc,,,ll,,,, ................... page, c1 IC t e xtern ••,,,,, H",'5-1 ~itlEmtlu$%iq­ Srapding Order (M A..nJllo4i!J t>rlh.: l.fQllntm Dln.';tl ofC.uifomi" EffecflVe 3/1107 Application" link located----·· -.-­ ­ ~I:lW.RLII...l:.J~ under the "Court Information" section on the right-hand column. Please note however that not all Northern Districtjudges accept online applications, and somejudges stillpreferpaper applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Legal History
    WESTERN LEGAL HISTORY THE JOURNAL OF THE NINTH JuDIcIAL CIRCUIT HISTORICAL SOCIETY VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 SUMMER/FALL 1999 Western Legal History is published semiannually, in spring and fall, by the Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society, 125 S. Grand Avenue, Pasadena, California 91105, (626) 795-0266/fax (626) 229-7462. The journal explores, analyzes, and presents the history of law, the legal profession, and the courts- particularly the federal courts-in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Western Legal History is sent to members of the NJCHS as well as members of affiliated legal historical societies in the Ninth Circuit. Membership is open to all. Membership dues (individuals and institutions): Patron, $1,000 or more; Steward, $750-$999; Sponsor, $500-$749; Grantor, $250-$499; Sustaining, $100- $249; Advocate, $50-$99; Subscribing (nonmembers of the bench and bar, lawyers in practice fewer than five years, libraries, and academic institutions), $25449; Membership dues (law firms and corporations): Founder, $3,000 or more; Patron, $1,000-$2,999; Steward, $750-$999; Sponsor, $500-$749; Grantor, $250-$499. For information regarding membership, back issues of Western Legal History, and other society publications and programs, please write or telephone the editor. POSTMASTER: Please send change of address to: Editor Western Legal History 125 S. Grand Avenue Pasadena, California 91105 Western Legal History disclaims responsibility for statements made by authors and for accuracy of endnotes. Copyright, 01999, Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society ISSN 0896-2189 The Editorial Board welcomes unsolicited manuscripts, books for review, and recommendations for the journal.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Courts of the United States
    66 U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL of Decisions, the Librarian, the Marshal, Court Term The term of the Court the Director of Budget and Personnel, begins on the first Monday in October the Court Counsel, the Curator, the and lasts until the first Monday in Director of Data Systems, and the Public October of the next year. Approximately Information Officer. 8,000 cases are filed with the Court in Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate the course of a term, and some 1,000 jurisdiction has been conferred upon the applications of various kinds are filed Supreme Court by various statutes under each year that can be acted upon by a the authority given Congress by the single Justice. Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling Access to Facilities The Supreme Court jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4:30 be found in 28 U.S.C. 1251, 1253, p.m., Monday through Friday, except on 1254, 1257–1259, and various special Federal holidays. Unless the Court or statutes. Congress has no authority to Chief Justice orders otherwise, the change the original jurisdiction of this Clerk’s office is open from 9 a.m. to 5 Court. p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Rulemaking Power Congress has from Federal legal holidays. The library is time to time conferred upon the open to members of the bar of the Court, Supreme Court power to prescribe rules attorneys for the various Federal of procedure to be followed by the departments and agencies, and Members lower courts of the United States.
    [Show full text]