In Re Toll Roads Litigation, No. 8:2016cv00262 - Document 632 (C.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
In Re Toll Roads Litigation Doc. 632 O JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court Central District of California 8 9 10 11 In Re TOLL ROADS LITIGATION 12 13 FINAL JUDGMENT PENNY DAVIDI BORSUK, et al., 14 15 16 17 Case No. 8:16-cv-00262-ODW (ADSx) Plaintiffs, v. FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY, et al., 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 On February 16, 2016, Defendants removed this action from Orange County 22 Superior Court. (Notice Removal, ECF No. 1.) On July 20, 2020, the Court 23 appointed the Honorable Andrew J. Guilford, Ret. as Special Master. (ECF No. 582.) 24 Plaintiff Dan Golka on behalf of himself and the settlement class moved for final 25 approval of the class action settlement, (ECF Nos. 114, 623, 624), and on January 14, 26 2022, the Court adopted in full the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation for 27 that settlement, (ECF No. 622). On February 11, 2022, the Court granted final 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 approval of the class action settlement and awarded class counsel attorney’s fees, 2 costs, and service awards. (ECF Nos. 629, 630.) 3 It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows: 4 1. Judgment is entered for final approval of the class action settlement. 5 2. Defendants shall pay the attorney’s fees, costs, and service awards as 6 so directed in the Court’s February 11, 2022 Order, (ECF No. 630). 7 8 9 The Court VACATES all dates and deadlines. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 February 14, 2022 12 13 14 ____________________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
