Meza v. AT&T, Inc. et al

Filing 13

Stipulation of Dismissal as to AT&T Inc. and AT&T Corp, and ORDER, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/11/16. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4

PETER R. DION-KINDEM (State Bar No. 95267)
THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.
[e-mail]
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
Attorney for Plaintiff Dave Meza
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
HOLLY GAUDREAU (State Bar No. 209114)
[e-mail]
Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
CINDY D. HANSON (GA Bar No. 323920) (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
ROSS D. ANDRE (GA Bar No. 280210) (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
1100 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 2800
Atlanta, CA 30309
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for AT&T INC., AT&T CORP., and
PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19
FRESNO DIVISION
20
21

DAVE MEZA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

22
23
24
25
26

Case No. 1:16-cv-00792-LJO-MJS
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AS TO
AT&T INC. AND AT&T CORP. AND
ORDER

v.
AT&T, INC., PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE
COMPANY, AT&T CORP., and DOES 2
THROUGH 10,

Judge: Hon. Lawrence J. O’Neill

Defendants.

27
28

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff and Defendants
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AS TO AT&T INC. AND AT&T CORP. AND ORDER, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00792-LJO-MJS

-1-

1

AT&T Inc., AT&T Corp., and Pacific Bell Telephone Company hereby stipulate to the dismissal

2

without prejudice of all claims against AT&T Inc. and AT&T Corp., with Plaintiff, AT&T Inc.,

3

and AT&T Corp. each bearing his or its own attorney’s fees and costs as to each other, and

4

without effect on the claims against Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company. Pacific Bell

5

Telephone Company further stipulates that for purposes of Plaintiff’s Fair Credit Reporting Act

6

claim, it was the entity that procured or caused to be procured the consumer report about Plaintiff.

7
8

The parties further stipulate that the caption for this matter should be amended to read as
follows:

9
10

DAVE MEZA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated,

11
12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:16-cv-00792-LJO-MJS

Plaintiff,
Judge: Hon. Lawrence J. O’Neill

v.
PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
and DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AS TO AT&T INC. AND AT&T CORP. AND ORDER, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00792-LJO-MJS

-2-

1

DATED: July 7, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM

2
3

By: /s/ Peter R. Dion-Kindem (as authorized on July 7,
2016)
PETER R. DION-KINDEM

4
5

Attorney for Plaintiff
DAVE MEZA

6
7

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
8
9
By: /s/ Holly Gaudreau
HOLLY GAUDREAU

10
11

Attorneys for Defendants
AT&T, INC. and PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE
COMPANY

12
13

ORDER
14
15

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION,

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 11, 2016

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AS TO AT&T INC. AND AT&T CORP. AND ORDER, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00792-LJO-MJS

-3-