D.L. v. Vassilev et al
Filing
76
ORDER Regarding Dismissal of Defendants Pavel Mundl, MD and Rodolfo Vicente, MD, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/4/19. (Marrujo, C)
Dennis R. Thelen, SBN 83999
Kevin E. Thelen, SBN 252665
1
LAW OFFICES OF
2
LEBEAU • THELEN, LLP
5001 East Commercenter Drive, Suite 300
Post Office Box 12092
Bakersfield, California 93389-2092
(661) 325-8962; Fax (661) 325-1127
(dthelen@lebeauthelen.com)
(kthelen@lebeauthelen.com)
3
4
5
6
7
Attorneys for Defendants
County of Tulare, Pavel Mundl, M.D.,
and Rodolfo Vicente, M.D.
8
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
D.L.
Case No.: 1:14-CV-00824-AWI-BAM
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff,
vs.
STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF
DEFENDANTS PAVEL MUNDL, M.D.
AND RODOLFO VICENTE, M.D.
MARGARET VASSILEV, M.D.; RODOLFO
VICENTE, M.D.; MARK WISEMAN, M.D.;
PAVEL MUNDL, M.D.; COUNTY OF
TULARE; KAWEAH DELTA HEALTHCARE
DISTRICT; SANDRA BOSMAN, M.D.;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; LORI ANN
M. BOKEN, M.D.; T. PLUNKETT, RNC; D.
BRACKETT, RNC; B. BROWN, RNFA; and
DOES 1 to 50,
Defendants.
21
22
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD:
23
Plaintiff D.L., a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Kari Ann Junio, and through his
24
counsel of record Mark Wade Coleman, Esq., and defendants Rodolfo Vicente, M.D. and Pavel Mundl,
25
M.D., through their counsel of record Kevin E. Thelen, Esq., hereby stipulate and agree to dismiss
26
defendants Rodolfo Vicente, M.D. and Pavel Mundl, M.D., with prejudice, from the above-captioned
27
action in exchange for a waiver of costs.
28
{00225044;1}
-1STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS PAVEL MUNDL, M.D. AND
RODOLFO VICENTE, M.D.
1
This agreement between the parties was reached following arms-length negotiations about a
2
potential resolution to the case between counsel for plaintiff and counsel for Dr. Mundl and Dr. Vicente.
3
This dismissal of Dr. Mundl and Dr. Vicente shall be effective immediately upon the execution
4
of the enclosed Proposed Order filed herein with the Court.
5
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
6
7
Date: March 1, 2019
NUTTALL COLEMAN & DRANDELL
8
By:
9
10
11
/s/ Mark W. Coleman
___________________________________
MARK W. COLEMAN, ESQ.
Attorneys for plaintiff D.L., by and through his
Guardian ad Litem, Kari Ann Junio
12
13
Dated: March 1, 2019
14
LeBEAU-THELEN, LLP
By:
15
16
17
18
///
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
/s/ KEVIN E. THELEN_______________
DENNIS R. THELEN, ESQ.
KEVIN E. THELEN, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF TULARE, PAVEL MUNDL,
M.D., AND RODOLFO VICENTE, M.D.
///
28
{00225044;1}
-2STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS PAVEL MUNDL, M.D. AND
RODOLFO VICENTE, M.D.
1
ORDER
2
The parties have stipulated that the action brought by Plaintiff D.L., a minor, by and through his
3
Guardian Ad Litem, Kari Ann Junio, against Defendants Rodolfo Vicente, M.D. and Pavel Mundl, M.D.
4
be dismissed with prejudice in exchange for a waiver of costs. In light of the parties’ stipulation,
5
Plaintiff’s action against Defendants Rodolfo Vicente, M.D. and Pavel Mundl, M.D. only is terminated
6
by operation of law without further order from the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The motions
7
for summary judgment currently set for hearing on March 15, 2018 (Doc. Nos. 72, 73), and all other
8
pending dates and matters pertaining to Defendants Rodolfo Vicente, M.D. and Pavel Mundl, M.D., are
9
VACATED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket by terminating Defendants Rodolfo
10
Vicente, M.D. and Pavel Mundl, M.D. and not close this action.
11
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
March 4, 2019
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{00225044;1}
-3STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS PAVEL MUNDL, M.D. AND
RODOLFO VICENTE, M.D.
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?