Claudia Barraza v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company LLC et al

Filing 28

ORDER On Joint Stipulation Requesting Dismissal of Entire Action Without Prejudice 23 by Judge John F. Walter that the above entitled Action shall be dismissed without prejudice, and that each Party shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees in this matter. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

5

PETER M. HART (SBN. 198691)
[e-mail]
PETER CHOI (SBN 249482)
[e-mail]
LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 205
Los Angeles, California 90025
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

6

Attorneys for Plaintiff CLAUDIA BARRAZA

1
2
3
4

_
JS-6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

CLAUDIA BARRAZA, as an individual

Case No. 5:16-CV-00134-JFW (SPx)

situated,

ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION
REQUESTING DISMISSAL OF
ENTIRE ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

10 and on behalf of others similarly
11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

v.
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY,
LLC, a Delaware corporation;, and
DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive,
Defendants.

17
18

JOINT STIPULATION

19

Plaintiff Claudia Barraza (“Plaintiff”) on the one hand, and Defendant Ritz-

20

Carlton Hotel Company, LLC (“Defendant”) on the other hand, (collectively, “the

21
22
23
24

Parties”), by through their attorneys of record in this case, and pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 and 41, stipulate as follows:
Whereas: On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed this putative wage and hour

25
26

class action in the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles, which was

27 removed to the Central District of California (Eastern Division) on January 22, 2016,
28 and subsequently re-assigned to this Court;
1
Case No. 5:16-CV-00134-JFW (SPx)
ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

1
2

Whereas: No notice of this Action has been sent to any potential class
member, such as by way of a privacy opt-out notice or any other notice;

3
4
5
6

Whereas: This Action also has not been certified by any Court, and no
settlement of the Action has been reached;
Whereas: No consideration, direct or indirect, has been received as a part of

7
8
9
10
11

the Parties’ Joint Stipulation Requesting Dismissal of the Action in its Entirety
without prejudice by either counsel for Plaintiff or by Plaintiff;
Whereas: Each Party believes that it will not be prejudiced should the Court
grant dismissal of this Action without prejudice;

12
13
14
15

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and respectfully requested
pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Paragraph 7 of this Court’s Standing Order
[Doc. No. 9] dated January 27, 2016 that the Court dismiss this Action in its entirety

16
17

without prejudice, and that each Party shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees

18

in this matter.

19

Having reviewed the declaration of Peter M. Hart in support of the Parties’ request

20

for dismissal of the entire Action without prejudice and the Parties’ Joint Stipulation
21
22

Requesting Dismissal of Entire Action Without Prejudice, and having found good

23

cause therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: that the above entitled Action shall be

24

dismissed without prejudice, and that each Party shall bear their own costs and

25
26
27
28

attorneys’ fees in this matter.
DATED: March 18, 2016

Hon. John Walter

2
Case No. 5:16-CV-00134-JFW (SPx)
ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE