Fajardo v. City of Bakersfield et al

Filing 51

STIPULATION and ORDER 50 Dismissing Certain Claims with Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/28/2019. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Michael G. Marderosian, No. 77296
Heather S. Cohen, No. 263093
MARDEROSIAN & COHEN
1260 Fulton Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Virginia Gennaro, No. 138877
City Attorney
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10
11

Attorneys for: Defendants CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, JUAN OROZCO, and LINDY DEGEARE

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15

GILBERTO FAJARDO,

16

Plaintiff,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

vs.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD; JUAN
OROZCO; LINDY DEGEARE; and
DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-CV-00699-JLT
STIPULATION DISMISSING CERTAIN
CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED]
ORDER THEREON (Doc. 50)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties hereto, by and through their
respective counsel of record, that the following claims be dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice:
STIPULATION

26

The parties have met and conferred multiple times regarding their respective contemplated

27

dispositive motions in this matter. They have arrived at the following stipulation and proposed order, with

28

which they propose to compromise with respect to a number of issues raised. Specifically, the parties
stipulate that (and request that the Court enter an order confirming that):

1

1
2
3
4
5
6

1.

Plaintiff agrees to dismiss his Third Claim for Municipal Liability – Ratification (42

U.S.C. § 1983).
2.

Plaintiff agrees to dismiss his Fourth Claim for Municipal Liability – Inadequate Training

(42 U.S.C. § 1983).
3.

Plaintiff agrees to dismiss his Fifth Claim for Municipal Liability – Unconstitutional

Custom, Practice or Policy (42 U.S.C. § 1983).
4.

In return, Defendants agree to forego filing a motion for summary judgment and waive all

7

costs associated with the above claims.
8
9
10

5.

There is good cause to approve this Stipulation because it will streamline the issues to be

tried and reduce the time and expense associated with dispositive motions.
6.

The parties jointly request that the Court enter an order consistent with this Stipulation.

11
12

Dated: October 28, 2019

MARDEROSIAN & COHEN
/s/ Michael G. Marderosian

13

By:______________________________
Michael G. Marderosian,
Attorneys for Defendants

14
15
16

Dated: October 28, 2019

LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO

17

/s/ Dale K. Galipo
18

By:______________________________
Dale K. Galipo,
Attorneys for Plaintiff

19
20
21
22

Dated: October 28, 2019

CHAIN COHN STILES
/s/ David K. Cohn

23
24
25

By:______________________________
David K. Cohn,
Attorneys for Plaintiff

26
27
28

2

1
2

PROPOSED ORDER
Before the Court is a Stipulation among the parties with which they propose to resolve certain

3

issues arising with respect to contemplated dispositive motions by means of a compromise. Good cause

4

appearing, the Court adopts the parties’ Stipulation and orders that:

5

1.

The following claims for relief in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint are DISMISSED WITH

6

PREJUDICE with each side to bear its own fees and costs as to those claims: (a) Third Claim for

7

Municipal Liability – Ratification (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (b) Fourth Claim for Municipal Liability –

8

Inadequate Training (42 U.S.C. § 1983); and (c) Fifth Claim for Municipal Liability – Unconstitutional

9

Custom, Practice or Policy (42 U.S.C. § 1983).
2.

Defendants will forego filing a motion for summary judgment as to the remaining causes

10

of action.
11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 28, 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3