Common use of Defendant’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class Clause in Contracts

Defendant’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. Defendant denies that Plaintiff’s claims could be certified as a class action if this case were to proceed in litigation. Defendant contends, among other deficiencies, that Plaintiff’s proposed class is not ascertainable, that individual issues predominate over any common ones, and that a class action would be neither superior nor manageable. However, solely for purposes of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, Defendant does not oppose and agrees to certification of the Class defined in Section 2.06, 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 would be appropriate. Moreover, Defendant reserves the right to challenge 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 finally approved by the Court for any reason whatsoever, then Defendant’s agreement to certification of the Class for settlement purposes only will be void, and no doctrine of waiver, estoppel or preclusion will or shall be asserted in any proceedings involving Defendant. No agreements made by or entered into by Defendant in connection with the Settlement may be used by Plaintiff, 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 the Action or any other judicial proceeding.

Defendant’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. Defendant disputes that a class would be manageable or that common issues predominate over individual ones, and further denies that Plaintiff’s claims a litigation class properly could be certified as a class action if on the claims asserted in this case were to proceed in litigation. Defendant contends, among other deficiencies, that Plaintiff’s proposed class is not ascertainable, that individual issues predominate over any common ones, and that a class action would be neither superior nor manageableAction. However, solely for purposes of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, Defendant does not oppose and agrees to the certification of the Class defined in Section 2.06, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)only of the Settlement Class. Preliminary certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes shall not be deemed a concession that certification of a litigation class is appropriate, nor would Defendant be appropriate. Moreover, Defendant reserves the right to challenge precluded from challenging class certification in further proceedings in the 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, then Defendant’s agreement to the certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only will be void, and no doctrine of waiver, estoppel or preclusion will be implied or shall be asserted in any litigated certification proceedings involving Defendantin this Action. No agreements made by or entered into by Defendant in connection with the Settlement Agreement may be used by Plaintiff, any person in the Class, Settlement Class or any other person to establish any of the elements of class certification in any litigated certification proceedings, whether in the this Action or any other judicial proceeding.

Defendant’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. Defendant disputes that a litigation class would be manageable and further denies that Plaintiff’s claims could a litigation class may properly be certified as a class action if on the claims asserted in this case were to proceed in litigationLitigation. Defendant contends, among other deficiencies, that Plaintiff’s proposed class is not ascertainable, that individual issues predominate over any common ones, and that a class action would be neither superior nor manageable. However, solely Solely for purposes of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, Defendant does not oppose and agrees to the certification of the Settlement Class defined in Section 2.06, only for settlement the purposes only, pursuant to Fedof this Settlement. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Preliminary certification Certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes shall will not be deemed a concession that certification of a litigation class is appropriate, nor would Defendant be appropriate. Moreover, Defendant reserves the right to challenge precluded from challenging class certification in further proceedings in the Action this Litigation 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, then Defendant’s agreement to the certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only will be void, and no doctrine of waiver, estoppel estoppel, or preclusion will or shall be asserted in any litigated certification proceedings involving Defendantin this Litigation or any other judicial proceeding. No agreements made by or entered into by Defendant in connection with the Settlement Agreement may be used by Plaintiff, any person in the ClassSettlement Class Member, or any other person to establish any of the elements of class certification in any litigated certification proceedings, whether in the Action this Litigation or any other judicial proceeding.

Defendant’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. Defendant disputes that a class would be manageable or that common issues predominate over individual ones, and further denies that Plaintiff’s claims a litigation class properly could be certified as a class action if on the claims asserted in this case were to proceed in litigation. Defendant contends, among other deficiencies, that Plaintiff’s proposed class is not ascertainable, that individual issues predominate over any common ones, and that a class action would be neither superior nor manageableAction. However, solely for purposes of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, Defendant does not oppose and agrees to the certification of the Class defined in Section 2.06, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)only of the Settlement Class. Preliminary certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes shall not be deemed a concession that certification of a litigation class is appropriate, nor would Defendant be appropriate. Moreover, Defendant reserves the right to challenge precluded from challenging class certification in further proceedings in the 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, then Defendant’s agreement to the certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only will be void, and no doctrine of waiver, estoppel or preclusion will or shall be asserted in any litigated certification proceedings involving Defendantin this Action. No agreements made by or entered into by Defendant in connection with the Settlement Agreement may be used by Plaintiff, any person in the Class, Settlement Class or any other person to establish any of the elements of class certification in any litigated certification proceedings, whether in the this Action or any other judicial proceeding.

Defendant’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. Defendant denies disputes that Plaintiff’s claims a class would be manageable or that common issues predominate over individual ones, and deny that a litigation class properly could be certified as a class action if this case were to proceed on the claims asserted in litigation. Defendant contends, among other deficiencies, that Plaintiff’s proposed class is not ascertainable, that individual issues predominate over any common ones, and that a class action would be neither superior nor manageablethe Action. However, solely for purposes of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, Defendant does not oppose and hereby agrees to certification of the Class defined in Section 2.062.08, 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 Defendant be appropriate. Moreover, Defendant reserves the right to challenge 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 finally approved by the Court for any reason whatsoever, then Defendant’s agreement to the certification of the Class for settlement purposes only will be void, and no doctrine of waiver, estoppel or preclusion will or shall be asserted in any proceedings involving Defendant. No agreements made by or entered into by Defendant in connection with the Settlement may be used by Plaintiff, any person in the Class, Class or any other person to establish any of the elements of class certification in any litigated certification proceedings, whether in the Action Action, or any other judicial proceeding.

Defendant’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. Defendant disputes that a class would be manageable or that common issues predominate over individual ones, and denies that Plaintiff’s claims a litigation class properly could be certified as a class action if this case were to proceed on the claims asserted in litigation. Defendant contends, among other deficiencies, that Plaintiff’s proposed class is not ascertainable, that individual issues predominate over any common ones, and that a class action would be neither superior nor manageablethe Barani Action. However, solely for purposes of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, Defendant does not oppose oppose, and agrees to to, certification of the Class defined in Section 2.062.08, 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 Defendant be appropriate. Moreover, Defendant reserves the right to challenge precluded from challenging class certification in further proceedings in the Barani Action or in any other action if the Settlement is not finalized or finally approved. If the Settlement is not finally approved by the Court for any reason whatsoever, then Defendant’s agreement to the certification of the Class for settlement purposes only will be void, and no doctrine of waiver, estoppel or preclusion will or shall be asserted in any an proceedings involving Defendant. No agreements made by or entered into by Defendant in connection with the Settlement may be used by Plaintiff, any person in the Class, Class or any other person to establish any of the elements of class certification in any litigated certification proceedings, whether in the Barani Action or any other judicial proceeding.

Defendant’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. Defendant denies Defendants dispute that Plaintiff’s claims could a class would or should be certified as under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Defendants specifically deny that a class action if in this case were to proceed in litigation. Defendant contendsmatter is a superior method of adjudication, among other deficiencies, that Plaintiff’s proposed class is not ascertainable, that individual issues predominate over any common ones, and that a class action would be neither superior nor manageablemanageable or that common issues predominate over individual ones, and deny that a contested class properly could be certified on the claims asserted in the Action. However, solely for purposes of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, Defendant does Defendants do not oppose oppose, and agrees to expressly agree to, certification of the Class defined in Section 2.062.07, 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 Defendants be appropriate. Moreover, Defendant reserves the right to challenge 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 finally approved by the Court for any reason whatsoever, then Defendant’s agreement to the certification of the Class for settlement purposes only will be void, and no doctrine of waiver, estoppel estoppel, or preclusion will or shall be asserted in any proceedings a proceeding involving DefendantDefendants. No agreements made by or entered into by Defendant Defendants in connection with the Settlement may be used by Plaintiff, 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 the Action or any other judicial proceeding.

Defendant’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. Defendant disputes that a litigation class would be manageable and further denies that Plaintiff’s claims could a litigation class may properly be certified as a class action if on the claims asserted in this case were to proceed in litigationLitigation. Defendant contends, among other deficiencies, that Plaintiff’s proposed class is not ascertainable, that individual issues predominate over any common ones, and that a class action would be neither superior nor manageable. However, solely Solely for purposes of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, however, Defendant does not oppose and agrees to the certification of the Settlement Class defined in Section 2.06, for settlement the purposes of this Settlement only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Preliminary certification Certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes shall will not be deemed a concession that certification of a litigation class is appropriate, nor would Defendant be appropriate. Moreover, Defendant reserves the right to challenge precluded from challenging class certification in further proceedings in the Action this Litigation or in any other action if the Settlement Agreement is not finalized or finally approvedapproved by the Court. If the Settlement Agreement is not finally approved by the Court for any reason whatsoever, then Defendant’s agreement to the certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only will be void, and no doctrine of waiver, estoppel estoppel, or preclusion will or shall be asserted in any litigated certification proceedings involving Defendantin this Litigation or any other judicial proceeding. No agreements made by or entered into by Defendant in connection with the Settlement Agreement may be used by Plaintiff, any person in the ClassSettlement Class Member, or any other person to establish any of the elements of class certification in any litigated certification proceedings, whether in the Action this Litigation or any other judicial proceeding.

Defendant’s Position on the Conditional Certification of Settlement Class. Defendant denies Defendants dispute that Plaintiff’s claims could a litigation class would be manageable and further deny that a litigation class may properly be certified as a class action if on the claims asserted in this case were to proceed in litigationLitigation. Defendant contends, among other deficiencies, that Plaintiff’s proposed class is not ascertainable, that individual issues predominate over any common ones, and that a class action would be neither superior nor manageable. However, solely Solely for purposes of avoiding the expense and inconvenience of further litigation, Defendant does Defendants do not oppose and agrees the certification of the Settlement Class for the purposes of this Settlement only. Defendants’ non- opposition to certification of the Settlement Class defined in Section 2.06, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Preliminary certification of the Class for settlement purposes shall will not be deemed a concession that certification of a litigation class is appropriate, nor would Defendants be appropriate. Moreover, Defendant reserves the right to challenge precluded from challenging class certification on any claims in further proceedings in the Action this Litigation or in any other action if the Settlement is not finalized or finally approved. If the Settlement is not finally approved by the Court for any reason whatsoever, then Defendant’s agreement to the certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only will be void, and no doctrine of waiver, estoppel estoppel, or preclusion will or shall be asserted in any litigated certification proceedings involving Defendantin this Litigation or any other action or judicial proceeding. No agreements made by or entered into by Defendant Defendants in connection with the Settlement or this Agreement may be used by Plaintiff, any person in the ClassSettlement Class Member, or any other person to establish any of the elements of class certification in any litigated certification proceedings, whether in the Action this Litigation or any other judicial action or proceeding.