Tyrone Acosta et al v. City of Los Angeles et al

Filing 44

ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL FOR PLAINTIFF TYRONE ACOSTA AND REQUEST FOR COURT APPROVAL by Judge Manuel L. Real: The Court ORDERS that the dismissal of this action is fair and appropriate due to the Plaintiff's failure to respond to discovery and/or failure to prosecute this action. The Joint Stipulation for Dismissal filed by the Parties' Counsel 43 is hereby approved. This case is dismissed with prejudice. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6. ) (gk)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
CLERK,

5

FILED
U.S.I
RICT COURT

MAY 2 6 2015

6
7

AL DISTRICT F CALIFOP

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

TYRONE ACOSTA, et al.,,

11

Plaintiff,

12
V.

13

CITY OF LOS ANGELES and Does
1 through 10 inclusive,

14
15

Defendant.

16

Case No.: 2:14-CV-05641 R (AJWx)
Complaint Filed: July 21, 2014
[PI0POSir11] ORDER RE JOINT
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL
FOR PLAINTIFF TYRONE ACOSTA
AND REQUEST FOR COURT
APPROVAL

Trial Date:
August 25 2015
Final Pretrial Conf.: July 27, 2615
Discovery Cut-Off: July 6, 2015

17
18
19

Counsel for the Parties have stipulated to the dismissal of this action as it

20

relates to the claims of the sole remaining plaintiff, TYRONE ACOSTA. These

21

claims were originally asserted following decertification of two collective actions

22

that sought damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of

23

police officers employed by the City of Los Angeles’ Police Department (LAPD). 1

24

Plaintiff TYRONE ACOSTA’s claims were included with those asserted on behalf

25

of 157 additional officers who were also opt-in members of the original collective

26

actions until decertification in May 2014. The claims of the 157 other officers were

27

1

28

Alaniz v. City of Los Angeles (Case No. 2:04-cv-08592-AG-AJWx) and Cesar
Mata v. City ofLos Angeles (Case No. 2:07-cv-06782-AG-AJWx).
929236.1 L0160-056

[Proposed] Order re Joint Stipulation for Dismissal for Plaintiff Tyrone Acosta and Request for Court
Approval

’1

1 subsequently dismissed due to misjoinder and only the claims of Plaintiff TYRONE
2 ACOSTA remain actively pending. 2
3

The Court has reviewed the Joint Stipulation for Dismissal and is of the

4 opinion that dismissal of Plaintiff TYRONE ACOSTA’s claims for failing to
5

provide discovery responses and for lack of prosecution is fair and appropriate

6 given the circumstances. For the foregoing reasons,
7

THE COURT HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER:

8

The dismissal of this action is fair and appropriate due to the Plaintiff’s

9 failure to respond to discovery and/or failure to prosecute this action. The Joint
10 Stipulation for Dismissal filed by the Parties’ Counsel is hereby approved. This
11 case is dismissed with prejudice.
E
0 . .

1

14
U

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated:

19

United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff TYRONE ACOSTA is the first-named officer in the caption of the
Complaint filed in this action.

929236.1 L0160-056

[Proposed] Order re Joint Stipulation for Dismissal for Plaintiff Tyrone Acosta and Request for Court Approval