Spector Roseman

Case Activity (62555)

1. Motion | Filed: December 13, 2018 | Entered: December 13, 2018 Maplevale Farms, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc. et al

   791(Labor: E.R.I.S.A.) | Illinois Northern

   Motion

   MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-15275390. (Pearson, Matthew) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

2. Filed: December 13, 2018 | Entered: December 13, 2018 In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation Assigned to: Judge Margo K. Brodie Referred to: Magistrate Judge James Orenstein Cause: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

   | New York Eastern

   Minute Entry for hearing on a motion by (b)(3) class 7257 for preliminary approval of superseding settlement agreement and class certification for purposes of settlement, PMC request 7287 by Bank Defendants, and discovery extension request 7315 held before District Judge Margo K. Brodie and Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on December 6, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. Class Counsel will work with the Equitable Relief Plaintiffs to resolve the issue raised by the Equitable Relief Plaintiffs 7313 concerning the reference to injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief in the release provisions of the superseding settlement agreement. In response to the Bank Defendants' PMC request, the Bank Defendants and Equitable Relief Plaintiffs will confer and submit a proposed briefing schedule for the motion to dismiss. The Court heard arguments from the Branded Operators on their objections [7299, 7300, 7301] to the superseding settlement agreement. Interim Class Counsel for the (b)(3) class will provide notice of the settlement to the Branded Operators. In addition, any persons, businesses, or entities that have had any claims excluded from this action will receive notice of their exclusion. The Court discussed with the parties its concerns about the release provision of the superseding settlement agreement. For the reasons discussed on the record, the parties will draft clarifying language to be included in the notice. The Court reviewed the relevant Rule 23(a), (b) and (e) factors and a summary of its reasons for finding that it is likely that it will approve the settlement and certify a class for the purposes of settlement. Interim Class Counsel will submit all relevant updated documents to the Court for review. The parties reported no discovery disputes ripe for resolution and will confer to submit proposed dates for further status conferences before Judge Orenstein. (Court Reporter Charleane Heading.) (Attachments: # 1 Appearances) (Guy, Alicia) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

3. Minutes | Filed: December 6, 2018 | Entered: December 13, 2018 In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation

   Anti-Trust | New York Eastern

   Motion Hearing Order on Motion for Pre Motion Conference

   Minute Entry for hearing on a motion by (b)(3) class 7257 for preliminary approval of superseding settlement agreement and class certification for purposes of settlement, PMC request 7287 by Bank Defendants, and discovery extension request 7315 held before District Judge Margo K. Brodie and Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on December 6, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. Class Counsel will work with the Equitable Relief Plaintiffs to resolve the issue raised by the Equitable Relief Plaintiffs 7313 concerning the reference to injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief in the release provisions of the superseding settlement agreement. In response to the Bank Defendants' PMC request, the Bank Defendants and Equitable Relief Plaintiffs will confer and submit a proposed briefing schedule for the motion to dismiss. The Court heard arguments from the Branded Operators on their objections [7299, 7300, 7301] to the superseding settlement agreement. Interim Class Counsel for the (b)(3) class will provide notice of the settlement to the Branded Operators. In addition, any persons, businesses, or entities that have had any claims excluded from this action will receive notice of their exclusion. The Court discussed with the parties its concerns about the release provision of the superseding settlement agreement. For the reasons discussed on the record, the parties will draft clarifying language to be included in the notice. The Court reviewed the relevant Rule 23(a), (b) and (e) factors and a summary of its reasons for finding that it is likely that it will approve the settlement and certify a class for the purposes of settlement. Interim Class Counsel will submit all relevant updated documents to the Court for review. The parties reported no discovery disputes ripe for resolution and will confer to submit proposed dates for further status conferences before Judge Orenstein. (Court Reporter Charleane Heading.) (Attachments: # 1 Appearances) (Guy, Alicia)