IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
PENELOPE BAIM BLOCK, )
BRIJ M. SHARMA, CHARANJIT )
SINGH, LISA M. BERTINI, )
VANDANA MAKKER, BALA M. )
KRISHNA, TY C. GERHARDT, )
JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN, )
MUKESH MITTAL, SANJAY )
AGARWAL, and SAVITA REDDY, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) 01 CH 9137
)
McDONALD’S CORPORATION, ) Judge Richard Siebel
)
Defendant. )
[PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING AMENDED COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AND CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING A PLAINTIFF SETTLEMENT CLASS
WHEREAS, the parties to this action have entered into a Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”) dated as of March 22, 2002.
WHEREAS, this Court has reviewed the Settlement; and
Good cause appearing and solely for the purpose of settlement in accordance with the settlement agreement of the parties, the Court finds and orders as follows:
1. The Court hereby authorizes plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
2. The Court hereby provisionally certifies a Plaintiff Settlement Class of all persons resident in the United States, including but not limited to vegetarians and Hindus, who: (i) have consumed McDonald’s food products from or at McDonald’s Restaurants in the United States (as defined in the Settlement) since July 23, 1990; and (ii) have concerns, objections or dietary restrictions, whether ethical, moral, religious, philosophical or health-related, with respect to the consumption of beef or meat.
3. The Plaintiff Settlement Class, as described above, is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
4. There are questions of law or fact common to the issues to be reviewed in connection with the above-described Plaintiff Settlement Class.
5. The claims advanced by Representative Plaintiffs Brij M. Sharma, Charanjit Singh, Lisa M. Bertini, Vandana Makker, Bala M. Krishna, Ty C. Gerhardt, Penelope Baim Block, Jeffrey Zimmerman, Mukesh Mittal, Sanjay Agarwal, and Savita Reddy are typical of the claims of the above-described Plaintiff Settlement Class.
6. The Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the above-described Plaintiff Settlement Class and are conditionally certified as Representatives of the Plaintiff Settlement Class for the purpose of implementing the settlement in accordance with the Settlement. The Law Offices of Harish Bharti; Hagens Berman LLP; Edelman, Combs & Latturner, LLC; Block & Block, P.C.; The Law Offices of Arvind Mahendru; Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza, Inc.; Caddell & Chapman, P.C.; Kalikman & Masnik; and Berger & Montague, P.C., are appointed as counsel for the Plaintiff Settlement Class, and all shall receive notice of all proceedings related to the Settlement.
7. The questions of law or fact common to the issues to be reviewed in connection with the above-described Plaintiff Settlement Class predominate over the questions affecting only individual members.
8. Certification of the above-described Plaintiff Settlement Class by the Court in this action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the issues before the Court at this time.
9. Any Plaintiff Settlement Class member may elect not to be part of the Plaintiff Settlement Class and not to be bound by the Settlement, or may object to the Settlement.
10. Notice of the pendency of the Litigation (as defined in the Settlement), including this action, and the proposed settlement shall be provided to the Plaintiff Settlement Class as specified in the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, filed herewith. The Court finds this to be the best practicable notice to all members of the Plaintiff Settlement Class.
11. In the event the Settlement terminates pursuant to its terms for any reason, the certification of the Plaintiff Settlement Class shall be vacated automatically, the Representative Plaintiffs shall cease to function as representatives of the Plaintiff Settlement Class, and this action shall revert to its status with respect to class certification and otherwise as existed immediately prior to the execution of the Settlement. Nothing in this Order is, or may be construed as, an admission or concession by or against any of the parties on any point of fact or law.
|
DATED: ___________, 2002 |
___________________________________ Hon. Richard Siebel |
|
|
|