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)

Download PDF
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?