Ovalle v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston

Filing 18

STIPULATION and ORDER for dismissal of action with prejudice signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/1/2012. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PAMELA E. COGAN (SBN 105089) HANA A. HARDY (SBN 252871) ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY 1001 Marshall Street, Suite 500 Redwood City, CA 94063-2052 Telephone: (650) 364-8200 Facsimile: (650) 780-1701 Email: pcogan@rmkb.com hhardy@rmkb.com Attorneys for Defendant LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 A Professional Corporation Redwood City Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley 8 11 DAVID OVALLE, 12 Case No. 1:12-cv-00292-AWI-DLB Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 13 v. 14 LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff, DAVID OVALLE, and defendant, 19 LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON, by and through their attorneys of record, that 20 the above-captioned action shall be, and hereby is, dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant, 21 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 22 Each party shall bear its own fees and costs. 23 24 25 26 27 28 RC1/6474725.1/HAH STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL – CASE NO.: 1:12-CV-00292-AWI-DLB 1 2 ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY Dated: May 31, 2012 3 By: Pamela E. Cogan PAMELA E. COGAN HANA A. HARDY Attorneys for Defendant LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON 4 5 6 7 Dated: May 31, 2012 DAVID OVALLE 9 By: David Ovalle DAVID OVALLE Plaintiff 10 A Professional Corporation Redwood City Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley 8 11 12 ORDER 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: June 1, 2012 17 18 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 0m8i788 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RC1/6474725.1/HAH -2- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL – CASE NO.: 1:12-CV-00292-AWI-DLB

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?