James Nolan v. Los Angeles City of, et al
Filing
967
STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND ORDER by Judge Gary A. Feess: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 1. On or about April 12, 2011 a jury trial in this matter commenced. Plaintiffs Jason Beatty, Helen Lopez, Samuel Earl Mark and James Nolan w ere represented by Greg K. Hafif and Fenja Klaus of the Law Offices of Herbert Hafif and defendant City of Los Angeles was represented by Brian Walter and Geoffrey Sheldon of Liebert Cassidy Whitemore. At the conclusion of the two week trial, the Jur y issued the "Special Interrogatories and Verdict Form for Plaintiffs James Nolan, Helen Lopez, Samuel Mark and Jason Beatty" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (Docket No. 900). Based upon this Verdict, plaintiffs and defense coun sel entered into settlement discussions, of which a Settlement Agreement and Release was negotiated. 2. The Court hereby approves the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Release as fair, reasonable, appropriate, and in accordance with law, and here by incorporates by reference herein the terms of such Settlement Agreement and Release attached hereto as Exhibit "B"; 3. Consistent with said Settlement Agreement and Release, this Action is hereby dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiffs Roy Ballesteros, Jason Beatty, Robert Calderon, Harold Cox, William Dougherty, Ietia Eston, Ellis Imaizumi, Rick Johnson, Johnnie Jones, Helen Lopez, Samuel Earl Mark, James J. May, Jr., Leonard Miller, Kinard Moffatt, Martha Moran, Hubert Nino, Jam es Nolan, Robert Nowak, Juan Santos, Oscar Winslow, and Johnnie Zamora, only, provided, however that the Court will retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Release, any and all motion s for attorney's fees and costs, and this Final Order and 4. That plaintiffs O'Neil Carter, Angela Chu, Tom Danzek and Henry Quon have not agreed to the Settlement Agreement and Release, and therefore the Court shall retain jurisdiction for all the above four (4) named Plaintiffs. (bm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Greg K. Hafif (SBN 149515)
E-mail: ghafif@hafif.com
Michael G. Dawson (150385)
E-mail: mgdawson@hafif.com
LAW OFFICES OF HERBERT HAFIF, APC
269 W. Bonita Avenue
Claremont, California 91711-4784
Telephone: (909) 624-1671
Facsimile: (909) 625-7772
Attorneys for Plaintiff JAMES NOLAN,
individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
JAMES NOLAN,
13
14
15
16
Case No.: CV-03-2190 GAF (AJWx)
Plaintiff,
STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND
ORDER
vs.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
19
Having considered the Settlement Agreement and Release between plaintiffs
20
Roy Ballesteros, Jason Beatty, Robert Calderon, Harold Cox, William Dougherty,
21
Ietia Eston, Ellis Imaizumi, Rick Johnson, Johnnie Jones, Helen Lopez, Samuel
22
Earl Mark, James J. May, Jr., Leonard Miller, Kinard Moffatt, Martha Moran,
23
Hubert Nino, James Nolan, Robert Nowak, Juan Santos, Oscar Winslow, and
24
Johnnie Zamora (“Plaintiffs”) and defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”), as
25
well as the Jury Verdict entered on April 22, 2011 as to Plaintiffs Jason Beatty,
26
Helen Lopez, Samuel Earl Mark, and James Nolan (“Trial Plaintiffs”), and the
27
entire record in the above-referenced matter, and upon joint application of Plaintiffs
28
and Defendant, by and through their attorneys of record:
STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND ORDER
1
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
2
1.
On or about April 12, 2011 a jury trial in this matter commenced.
3
Plaintiffs Jason Beatty, Helen Lopez, Samuel Earl Mark and James
4
Nolan were represented by Greg K. Hafif and Fenja Klaus of the Law
5
Offices of Herbert Hafif and defendant City of Los Angeles was
6
represented by Brian Walter and Geoffrey Sheldon of Liebert Cassidy
7
Whitemore. At the conclusion of the two week trial, the Jury issued
8
the “Special Interrogatories and Verdict Form for Plaintiffs James
9
Nolan, Helen Lopez, Samuel Mark and Jason Beatty” attached hereto
10
as Exhibit “A” (Docket No. 900). Based upon this Verdict, plaintiffs
11
and defense counsel entered into settlement discussions, of which a
12
Settlement Agreement and Release was negotiated.
2.
13
The Court hereby approves the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
14
Release as fair, reasonable, appropriate, and in accordance with law,
15
and hereby incorporates by reference herein the terms of such
16
Settlement Agreement and Release attached hereto as Exhibit “B”;
3.
17
Consistent with said Settlement Agreement and Release, this Action is
18
hereby dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiffs Roy Ballesteros, Jason
19
Beatty, Robert Calderon, Harold Cox, William Dougherty, Ietia Eston,
20
Ellis Imaizumi, Rick Johnson, Johnnie Jones, Helen Lopez, Samuel
21
Earl Mark, James J. May, Jr., Leonard Miller, Kinard Moffatt, Martha
22
Moran, Hubert Nino, James Nolan, Robert Nowak, Juan Santos, Oscar
23
Winslow, and Johnnie Zamora, only, provided, however that the Court
24
will retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing compliance with
25
the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Release, any and all
26
motions for attorney’s fees and costs, and this Final Order and
27
Judgment; and
28
///
2.
STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND ORDER
1
4.
That plaintiffs O’Neil Carter, Angela Chu, Tom Danzek and Henry
2
Quon have not agreed to the Settlement Agreement and Release, and
3
therefore the Court shall retain jurisdiction for all the above four (4)
4
named Plaintiffs.
5
6
Dated: September 6, 2013
LAW OFFICES OF HERBERT HAFIF
7
8
By:____/s/ Greg Hafif__________________
Greg K. Hafif
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9
10
11
12
Dated: September 6, 2013
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
13
14
By: ____/s/ Brian Walter________________
Brian Walter
Attorneys for Defendant
City of Los Angeles
15
16
17
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED:
20
21
22
23
Dated: September 17, 2013
__________________________________
Honorable Gary A. Feess
United States District Court Judge
24
25
26
27
28
3.
STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?