Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Corbett Steelman
-
Notice | Filed: March 08, 2022 | Entered: March 08, 2022 In Re Toll Roads Litigation
Civil Rights: Other | California Central
Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)
Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Katherine W Van Dyck counsel for Plaintiffs Penny Davidi Borsuk, Todd Carpenter, David Coulter, Dan Golka, Ebrahim E Mahda, Lori Myers, Todd Quarles, James Watkins. Katherine Van Dyck is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by plaintiff Penny Davidi Borsuk, Todd Carpenter, David Coulter, Dan Golka, Ebrahim E Mahda, Lori Myers, Todd Quarles, James Watkins. Ben Travis is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Penny Davidi Borsuk, Todd Carpenter, David Coulter, Dan Golka, Ebrahim E Mahda, Lori Myers, Todd Quarles, and James Watkins. (Van Dyck, Katherine)
-
Order | Filed: February 14, 2022 In Re Toll Roads Litigation
Civil Rights: Other | California Central
Order
FINAL JUDGMENT 631 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows: 1. Judgment is entered for final approval of the class action settlement. 2. Defendants shall pay the attorney's fees, costs, and service awards as so directed in the Court's February 11, 2022 Order, (ECF No. 630). (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lom)
-
Judgment | Filed: February 11, 2022 | Entered: February 14, 2022 In Re Toll Roads Litigation
Civil Rights: Other | California Central
Judgment
CLASS ACTION JUDGMENT 626 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED in favor of Defendants and against the Final Settlement Class Members as follows. [See judgment for details.] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 1. Defendant OCTA shall, for a period of 10 years, maintain its maximum toll violation penalty at no more that $100.00 per violation. The Court finds and declares that a maximum penalty of $100.00 per violation is not facially a violation of the Excessive Fines Clause under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 17 of the California Constitution. (lom)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login