Saldana v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Filing 30

STIPULATION and ORDER CLOSING THE ACTION, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/18/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

GREGORY C. CHENG, CA Bar No. 226865
[e-mail]
MICHAEL D. WILSON, JR., CA Bar No. 233334
[e-mail]
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
One Market Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone:
415.442.4810
Facsimile:
415.442.4870
Attorneys for Defendant
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

LAWRENCE W. FREIMAN, CA Bar No. 288917
[e-mail]
MICHAEL J. FREIMAN, CA Bar No. 280716
[e-mail]
FREIMAN LAW
100 WILSHIRE BLVD., STE. 700
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone:
310.917.1024
Facsimile:
888.835.8511
Attorneys for Plaintiff
YVONNE SALDANA

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18
19

YVONNE SALDANA,

20

Plaintiff,

21

Case No. 1:16-cv-00484-DAD-JLT
STIPULATION AND ORDER CLOSING
THE ACTION

v.
(Doc. 29)

22

HOME DEPOT USA, INC.; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive,

23
Defendant.
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 1:16-cv-00484-DAD-JLT
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff Yvonne Saldana

2

(“Saldana”) and Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot”) (Saldana and Home

3

Depot collectively hereinafter “the Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record,

4

stipulate and request that the entire above-captioned action be dismissed with prejudice, with

5

each side to bear its own costs and fees. The Parties further stipulate and request that Judge Dale

6

A. Drozd of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California or his

7

successor retain jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the Agreement and over any matters or

8

actions brought to enforce said Agreement.

9
10

DATED: January 18, 2017

FREIMAN LAW

11
12

By:

13
14

/s/ Lawrence Freiman
LAWRENCE W. FREIMAN
MICHAEL J. FREIMAN

Attorneys for Plaintiff
YVONNE SALDANA

15

(counsel’s signature as authorized on 01/18/17)

16
17
18

DATED: January 18, 2017

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.

19
20
21
22
23

By:

/s/ Gregory C. Cheng
GREGORY C. CHENG
MICHAEL D. WILSON, JR.

Attorneys for Defendant
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.

24
25
26
27
28
1
Case No. 1:16-cv-00484-DAD-JLT
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

1

ORDER

2

On January 18, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the action. (Doc. 29) The

3

parties agree that the matter will be dismissed with prejudice, that each side will bear their own

4

costs and fees and that the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

5

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41 provides that “the plaintiff may dismiss an action

6

without a court order by filing: . . . a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have

7

appeared.”. . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). Once such a notice has been filed, an order of the Court is not

8

required to make the dismissal effective. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose,

9

111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this

10

action in light of the notice of dismissal with prejudice filed and properly signed pursuant to Rule

11

41(a).

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 18, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No. 1:16-cv-00484-DAD-JLT
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE