Case No. 1:96CV01285-JR Class Action Settlement Agreement December 7, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page BACKGROUND 2 TERMS OF AGREEMENT 6 A. DEFINITIONS 6 B. AMENDED COMPLAINT AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 15 C. CLASS NOTICE AND OPT OUT 17 D. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT, FAIRNESS HEARING, AND FINAL APPROVAL 21 E. ACCOUNTING/TRUST ADMINISTRATION FUND 23 F. TRUST LAND CONSOLIDATION FUND 35 G. INDIAN EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIPS 38 H. TAXES AND ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS 42 I. RELEASES 43 J. ATTORNEYS’ FEES 47 K. CLASS REPRESENTATIVES’ INCENTIVE AWARDS 49 L. NO FURTHER MONETARY OBLIGATION 51 M. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 52 SIGNATURES. 55 i IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA XXXXXXX XXXXXX COBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. XXX XXXXXXX, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants. ))))))))))) Case No. 1:96CV01285-JR CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx and Xxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx (collectively, the “Named Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and members of the Classes of individual Indians defined in this Agreement (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on the one hand, and Xxx Xxxxxxx, Secretary of the Interior, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Assistant Secretary of the Interior – Indian Affairs, and X. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Secretary of the Treasury and their successors in office, all in their official capacities (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs and Defendants are collectively referenced as the “Parties.” Subject to Court approval as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 23, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree that, in consideration of the promises and covenants set forth in this Agreement and upon entry by the Court of a Final Order and Judgment and resolution of any appeals from that Final Order and Judgment, this Action shall be settled and compromised in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The Parties agree that the Settlement is contingent on the enactment of legislation to authorize or confirm specific aspects of the Settlement as set forth below. If such legislation, which will expressly reference this Agreement, is not enacted on or before the Legislation Enactment Deadline as defined in this Agreement, unless such date is mutually agreed to be extended by the Parties, or is enacted with material changes, the Agreement shall automatically become null and void.
Case No. 92CW333: Any and all water rights claimed, decreed or adjudicated by the District Court in and for Water Division 5 in Case No. 92CW333 (Bypass Water case), as the decree and rights adjudicated in that case may be perfected or amended from time to time, as well as any and all related plans for augmentation, permits, fixtures, facilities, rights‑of‑way, or other water rights, including but not limited to the following:
Case No. 1:16-cv-00966-TSC SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT For purposes of settling the above-captioned lawsuit without further judicial proceedings, Plaintiffs Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxx Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxxx and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (“PEER”) ( collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and Xxxx Xxxxxxx0 State:
Case No. CV 12-CV-505-LPS JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE The Xxx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxx Chief United States District Court Judge Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, Enzo Life Sciences, Inc., and Defendant, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims in this action. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. Respectfully submitted, XXXXXX LLP ________________ Xxxxx X. Xxxxxx (#4089) 000 Xxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, 00xx Xxx Xxxxxxxxxx, XX 00000 (302) 777-0336 xxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Attorneys for Plaintiff Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. XXXXXX XXXXXXX ARSHT & XXXXXXX LLP ______________________ Xxxx X. Xxxxxxxxxx (#1014) Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxxx (#4705) 0000 Xxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx X.X. Xxx 0000 Xxxxxxxxxx, XX 00000 (302) 658-9200 xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx Attorneys for Defendant Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc.
Case No. 93-CV-438; White Lakes Plaza Associates, L.P. Vs. U.S. Intec, Inc., Exterior Technologies Corp. and Professional Roof Inspectors, pending in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, Division 13. This suit was settled for the sum of $200,000 paid by National Union Fire Insurance Company.
Case No. GUILTY PLEA AGREEMENT 11 It is hereby agreed between the State of Oregon, by and through Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx, 12 Senior Assistant Attorney General for the State of Oregon, and the defendant, Xxxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx 13 through her counsel Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx, as follows:
Case No. DO-19-0054A CONSENT AGREEMENT FOR PRACTICE RESTRICTION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MEDICINE 2 IN MEDICINE AND SURGERY 3 4 7 8
Case No. AB-S-10,642-D Louisville, KY May 22, 1976 Pages 6-7 “In summary, Section 3 of Article XVI is procedural and the rights and obliga- tions associated with Section 3 attach and become relevant at the time of the suspension of more than 30 days or discharge. In November, 1975, when the unfortunate accident occurred and the grievant was charged with a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment can be imposed, the Employer took no dis- ciplinary action. The record further indicates that although Xx. Xxxxxx was in- dicted, the court is retaining jurisdiction for purposes of reviewing and moni- toring his rehabilitation as an alcoholic. The record of this case reveals Management's sensitivity and concern for the welfare of employees in Dallas area who admit to having a problem with alco- hol. On the other hand, to now impose an indefinite suspension in June of 1975 for an offense which occurred in November, 1974 and known to Management at that time, is not consistent with "just cause". There is no evidence that be- tween November, 1974 and June, 1975 there was additional evidence of disrup- tion in the work force as a result of working with Xx. Xxxxxx, or embarrassment in any sense to the Postal Service. The truth of the matter is in my opinion that the Postal Service during this time demonstrated with the court, interest and concern for Xx. Xxxxxx'x rehabilitation. But it is too late in June, 1975, absent additional facts which are not before me to discipline the grievant for some- thing that occurred six or seven months earlier.” Arbitrator Xxxxxx X. XxXxxxxxxx Case No. C0C-4L-D 16172 Fox Valley, IL March 15, 1993 Page 17 The above analysis leads to the inescapable conclusion that local Management failed to act upon information which forms the basis of this removal action for almost one year. Compounding this inaction, Management made no effort to conduct its own investigation or speak to the Grievant. Instead, Management allowed the Grievant to continue her coverage under Morrow's policy which In- xxxxxxx Ireland, on May 29, 1991, described as fraudulent. Thereafter, Ireland took no action after interviewing the Grievant in August 1991 and conducted no interviews until May 20, 1992, despite possessing the essential information from which a supplemental report could have been issued. When such a report was issued on June 2, 1992, Ireland composed that IM in a manner that while factual, omits any reference to the key August 1991 interview with the Grievant. Accor...
Case No. SETS NO.
Case No. 1:11-CV-6014 Magistrate Judge Xxxxxxxx Xxxx
