Both Sides Recommend Approval of the Settlement Sample Clauses

Both Sides Recommend Approval of the Settlement. 3.01 Defendant’s Position on Conditional Class Certification. Defendant disputes that a class would be manageable or that common issues predominate over individual ones, and further denies that a litigation class could be properly certified on the claims asserted in this Action. However, solely for purposes of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, Defendant does not oppose the certification for settlement purposes only of the Class. Preliminary certification of the Class for settlement purposes shall not be deemed a concession that certification of a litigation class is appropriate, nor would Defendant be precluded from challenging class certification in further proceedings in this Action or in any other action if the Settlement Agreement is not finalized or finally approved. If the Settlement Agreement is not finally approved by the Court for any reason whatsoever, any certification of the Class will be void, and no doctrine of waiver, estoppel or preclusion will be asserted against Defendant in any litigated certification proceedings in this Action. No agreements made by or entered into by Defendant in connection with the Settlement Agreement may be used by Plaintiffs, any person in the Class or any other person to establish any of the elements of class certification in any litigated certification proceedings, whether in this Action or any other judicial proceeding.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Both Sides Recommend Approval of the Settlement. 3.01. ERC’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. ERC disputes that a class could be properly certified to litigate the claims asserted in this Action. However, solely for purposes of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, ERC does not oppose and agrees to certification of the Class defined in Section 2.27, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Preliminary certification of the Class for settlement purposes shall not be deemed a concession that certification of a litigation class is appropriate, nor would ERC be precluded from challenging class certification in further proceedings in the Action or in any other action if the Settlement is not finalized or finally approved. If the Settlement is not ultimately finally approved by the Court, the certification of the Class will be void, and no doctrine of waiver, estoppel or preclusion will be asserted in any proceedings involving ERC. No agreements made by or entered into by ERC in connection with the Agreement may be used by Plaintiffs, any Person in the Class or any other Person, to establish any of the elements of class certification in any litigated certification proceedings, whether in this Action or any other judicial proceeding, or otherwise.
Both Sides Recommend Approval of the Settlement. 3.01 D efendants’ Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. Defendants believe that Plaintiffs’ legal and factual allegations in the Action are incorrect and specifically deny all liability to the Class or the Settlement Class. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs’ claims could be certified as a class action if this case were to proceed in litigation. Electronically Filed - St Louis County - February 10, 2020 - 04:12 PM
Both Sides Recommend Approval of the Settlement 

Related to Both Sides Recommend Approval of the Settlement

  • State Approval of Replacement Personnel The Engineer may not replace the project manager or key personnel without prior consent of the State. The State must be satisfied that the new project manager or other key personnel is qualified to provide the authorized services. If the State determines that the new project manager or key personnel is not acceptable, the Engineer may not use that person in that capacity and shall replace him or her with one satisfactory to the State within forty-five (45) days.

  • PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 28. Acceptance of this Settlement Agreement shall be sought at a hearing of the Central Regional Council of the MFDA on a date agreed to by counsel for Staff and the Respondent.

  • JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.

  • Approval of Plans Landlord will not check Tenant drawings for building code compliance. Approval of the Final Plans by Landlord is not a representation that the drawings are in compliance with the requirements of governing authorities, and it shall be Tenant’s responsibility to meet and comply with all federal, state, and local code requirements. Approval of the Final Plans does not constitute assumption of responsibility by Landlord or its architect for their accuracy, sufficiency or efficiency, and Tenant shall be solely responsible for such matters.

  • Approval of Agreement The Board of Directors of the Company has authorized the execution and delivery of this Agreement by the Company and has approved this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby.

  • Settlement Approval The approval of the Master Servicer need not be requested for disposition of insurance loss settlements and the Servicer may disburse the loss proceeds as provided herein.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.