Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County et al

Filing 93

STIPULATION and ORDER for Dismissal signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 06/19/2019. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494
John R. Whitefleet, SBN 213301
350 University Ave., Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95825
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

Attorneys for Defendants INYO COUNTY, JEFF HOLLOWELL, Inyo County Sheriff and
THOMAS HARDY, Inyo County District Attorney
Dorothy Alther, SBN 140906
California Indian Legal Services
609 S. Escondido Blvd.
Escondido, CA 92025
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone] fax
Attorneys for Plaintiff BISHOP PAIUTE TRIBE

PORTER | SCOTT

350 University Ave., Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14
15

BISHOP PAIUTE TRIBE,

16
17

Plaintiff,

20

(Doc. 92)
INYO COUNTY; JEFF HOLLOWELL, Inyo
County Sheriff; THOMAS HARDY, Inyo
County District Attorney,
Defendants.

21
22

___________________________________/
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and the terms of the parties’ settlement

23
24

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER FOR DISMISSAL

v.

18
19

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00367 DAD JLT

agreement,

25

Plaintiff BISHOP PAIUTE TRIBE and INYO COUNTY, JEFF HOLLOWELL, Inyo

26

County Sheriff and THOMAS HARDY, Inyo County District Attorney, stipulate to the dismissal of

27

this entire action, with prejudice. Each party shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs.

28

///
{02030768.DOCX}

1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

2
3

Dated: June 18, 2019

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

4

By /s/Carl L. Fessenden
Carl L. Fessenden
John R. Whitefleet
Attorneys for Defendants

5
6
7
8

PORTER SCOTT

Dated: June 18, 2019

9

California Indian Legal Services
By /s/Dorothy Alther (authorized 6/18/2019)
Dorothy Alther
Attorney for Plaintiff

10
11

PORTER | SCOTT

350 University Ave., Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

12
13

[PROPOSED] ORDER
As detailed above, the parties have stipulated to dismiss the action with each side to bear

14

their own fees and costs. (Doc. 92) The stipulation relies upon Fed.R.Civ.P. 41, which permits the

15

plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order “by filing . . . a stipulation of dismissal signed

16

by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Because all parties who have

17

appeared in the action signed the stipulation, it “automatically terminate[d] the action.” Wilson v.

18

City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is

19

DIRECTED to close this action.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 19, 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
{02030768.DOCX}

2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL