Jake Holmes v. James Patrick Page et al

Filing 27

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE by Judge Dolly M. Gee 25 . Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (im)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Daniel A. Johnson (State Bar No. 130724)
[e-mail]
Daniel M. Sullivan (State Bar No. 132878)
[e-mail]
Sullivan Johnson LLP
23480 Park Sorrento, Suite 250
Calabasas, California 91302
Telephone [phone]
Facsimilie [phone]

10

Charles J. Sanders (State Bar No. 112202)
[e-mail]
29 Kings Grant Way
Briarcliff Manor, New York 10510
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]

11

JS-6

Attorneys for Plaintiff Jake Holmes

7
8
9

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

) CASE NO. CV10-4789-DMG-PJW
)
)
Plaintiff,
) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
) WITH PREJUDICE [25]
vs.
)
)
)
JAMES PATRICK PAGE aka JIMMY )
PAGE, WB MUSIC CORP., a
)
California Corporation, SUPER HYPE )
PUBLISHING, INC., a New York
)
Corporation, ATLANTIC
)
RECORDING CORPORATION, a
)
Delaware Corporation, RHINO
)
ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, a )
Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 )
through 10 inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
JAKE HOLMES, an individual

25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

1
2
3
4
5
6

WHEREAS on November 7, 2011 the parties to this action submitted a
Stipulation to dismiss the above-captioned action with prejudice pursuant to Rule
41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
WHEREAS the Court has determined that although the parties intended to
dismiss the above-captioned action the November 7, 2011 Stipulation was not

7

effective to do so because it failed to specify the subsection of Rule 41(a)(1) of the

8

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under which dismissal without a Court order is

9

authorized, and

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

WHEREAS, the Court deems it appropriate to treat the November 7, 2011
Stipulation as a request by Plaintiff, to which Defendants have no objection, for a
Court Order dismissing the above-captioned action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned action is dismissed
with prejudice.
Dated: January 17, 2012

18
19
DOLLY M. GEE
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE