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)
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?