Tri-Dam v. Schediwy et al

Filing 96

STIPULATION and ORDER of FINAL JUDGMENT signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/19/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

DOWNEY BRAND LLP
KEVIN M. SEIBERT (Bar No. 119356)
THOMAS E. MARRS (Bar No. 252485)
621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TRI-DAM

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION

10
11

TRI-DAM,

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

Case No. 1:11-CV-01141-AWI-SMS
STIPULATION AND FORM OF FINAL
JUDGMENT

v.
RICHARD SCHEDIWY and LAURA
STRAUSS,
Defendants.

16
17

Courtroom:
Judge:

2, 8th Floor
Hon. Anthony W. Ishii

Action Filed:

July 8, 2011

Plaintiff Tri-Dam (“Tri-Dam”) and defendants Richard Schediwy and Laura Strauss

18

(“Defendants”), (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record,

19

hereby submit the following Stipulation and Proposed Form of Final Judgment.

20

STIPULATION

21

1.

On September 9, 2011, Tri-Dam filed its First Amended Complaint against

22

Defendants, seeking a permanent injunction requiring, among other things, Defendants to remove

23

improvements, including a retaining wall, that were installed in a manner that was inconsistent

24

with Tri-Dam approval.

25

2.

On March 6, 2014, the Court granted Tri-Dam’s motion for summary judgment

26

and entered a permanent injunction requiring, among other things, Defendants to demolish the

27

retaining wall on their property consistent with plans approved by Tri-Dam.

28
1400033.2

1
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED FORM OF FINAL JUDGMENT

1
2

3.

Defendants subsequently demolished the retaining wall on their property

consistent with plans approved by Tri-Dam.

3

4.

On February 19, 2015, the Parties provided a Joint Status Update to the Court.

4

5.

There being no further matters before the Court, the Parties respectfully request

5

that the Court enter the proposed form of judgment attached as Exhibit A as the Court’s final

6

judgment in this matter.

7
8

6.

The Court should retain jurisdiction to enforce its previously entered permanent

injunction.

9

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

10

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

11
DOWNEY BRAND LLP

12

DATED: March 19, 2015

By:

/s/ Thomas E. Marrs
THOMAS E. MARRS
Attorney for Plaintiff
TRI-DAM

DATED: March 19, 2015

By:

/s/ Kathleen Clack (as authorized 3/19/15)
KATHLEEN CLACK
Attorney for Defendants
RICHARD SCHEDIWY and LAURA STRAUSS

13
14
15
16
17
18
ORDER

19
20

Based on the parties’ stipulation, and good cause being shown, IT IS SO ORDERED. The

21

Clerk of the Court is directed to enter the proposed form of judgment attached as Exhibit A as the

22

Court’s final judgment in this matter. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the final

23

judgment.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 19, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
1400033.2

2
STIPULATION AND FORM OF FINAL JUDGMENT

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED FORM OF FINAL JUDGMENT