Viola Coppola, et al v. Gregory Smith, et al
Filing
220
Stiuplation to Dismiss, without Prejudice, California Water Service Company's Counter Claim Relating to Punitive Damages Only; ORDER signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/3/14. (Verduzco, M)
1
GREBEN & ASSOCIATES
125 E. DE LA GUERRA ST., STE 203
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101
TEL: 805-963-9090
FAX: 805-963-9098
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Jan A. Greben, SBN 103464
jan@grebenlaw.com
Brett A. Boon, SBN 283225
brett@grebenlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs VIOLA M. COPPOLA IRREVOCABLE TRUST,
GARY COPPOLA, and THE TRUST OF ANTHONY M. COPPOLA
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - FRESNO DIVISION
11
12 VIOLA M. COPPOLA IRREVOCABLE TRUST,
Case No.: 1:11-CV-01257-AWI-BAM
GARY COPPOLA, and THE TRUST OF
13 ANTHONY M. COPPOLA;
14
Plaintiffs,
15 v.
16 GREGORY SMITH, an individual; RICHARD
STIPULATION TO DISMISS, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, CALIFORNIA WATER
SERVICE COMPANY’S COUNTER
CLAIM RELATING TO PUNITIVE
DAMAGES ONLY ORDER
LASTER, an individual; and THE JANE HIGGINS
17 NASH TRUST; JANE NASH AS EXECUTOR OF
THE ESTATE OF DECATUR HIGGINS,
18 HARLEY MILLER, an individual; CHERYL
MILLER, an individual; MARTIN AND MARTIN
19 PROPERTIES, BENART MAIN STREET
PROPERTIES, CAL WATER SERVICE
20 COMPANY, the CITY OF VISALIA, NASH
PROPERTIES LLC [DOE #1], DAVID H. NASH,
21 as the successor co-trustee of the WILLIAM P.
NASH and JANE H. NASH REVOCABLE TRUST
22 [DOE #2], RICHARD P. NASH, as the successor
co-trustee of the WILLIAM P. NASH and JANE H.
23 NASH REVOCABLE TRUST [DOE #3], and
24
DOES 4-20, inclusive;
Defendants.
25
RELATED CROSS AND COUNTER26 CLAIMS
27
28
///
-1STIPULATION TO DISSMISS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE [PROPOSED] ORDER
1:11-CV-01257-AWI-BAM
1
Plaintiffs and counter defendants Gary Coppola, the Viola Coppola Irrevocable Trust, and
2
the Anthony M. Coppola Trust (collectively “Coppola”), and defendant and counterclaimant
3
California Water Service Company (“Cal Water”) hereby stipulate and request the Court to enter an
4
order as follows.
5
6
Whereas, on May 27, 2014 Cal Water filed a Counterclaim against Coppola, filed as
Document 216. The Counterclaim includes a request for punitive damages against Coppola.
7
Whereas, the Court previously dismissed another defendant's, Martin and Martin Properties,
8
counterclaim for punitive damages against Coppola on November 12, 2013, the Order filed as
9
Document 147.
10
Coppola and Cal Water hereby stipulate and request that the Court order that Cal Water’s
11
Counterclaim as it relates to relief of punitive damages, only be dismissed without prejudice.
12
Specifically, Paragraphs 39, 44 and Section (e) of the Prayer for Relief shall be dismissed from Cal
13
Water’s Counterclaim.
14
15
16
17
Coppola shall file a responsive pleading within ten (10) days of this Order or June 17, 2014,
the current deadline to file a response, whichever is later.
It is hereby stipulated.
Dated: June 3, 2014
18
GREBEN & ASSOCIATES
/s/ Jan A. Greben
Jan A. Greben
Brett A. Boon
Attorneys for Plaintiffs VIOLA
COPPOLA IRREVOCABLE TRUST,
GARY COPPOLA, and the TRUST OF
ANTHONY M. COPPOLA
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Dated: June 3, 2014
WOOD, SMITH, HENNING &
BERMAN LLP
/s/ Patrick S. Schoenburg
David F. Wood
Patrick S. Schoenburg
Attorneys for Defendant CALIFORNIA
WATER SERVICE COMPANY
28
-2STIPULATION TO DISSMISS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE [PROPOSED] ORDER
1:11-CV-01257-AWI-BAM
1
2
3
4
5
ORDER
Pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Paragraphs 39, 44 and Section (e) of the prayer for Relief are hereby dismissed from Cal
Water’s Counter claim without prejudice.
2. Coppola shall file a responsive pleading within (10) days of this Order or June 17, 2014, the
6
current deadline to file a response, whichever is later.
7
3. This action remains pending as to the remaining claims.
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 3, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3STIPULATION TO DISSMISS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE [PROPOSED] ORDER
1:11-CV-01257-AWI-BAM
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?