Phariss v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
16
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL 15 signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/7/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Young Cho
Attorney at Law: 189870
Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing
12631 East Imperial Highway, Suite C-115
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Tel.: (562) 868-5886
Fax: (562) 868-5491
E-mail: rohlfing.office@rohlfinglaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Scott William Phariss
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FRESNO DIVISION
11
12
13
14
SCOTT WILLIAM PHARISS,
15
Plaintiff,
16
vs.
17
18
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
19
20
Defendant.
) Case No.: 1:17-cv-00001-JLT
)
) STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL
) (Doc. 15)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
21
22
23
24
TO THE HONORABLE JENNIFER L. THURSTON, MAGISTRATE
JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT:
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Scott William Phariss
25
(“Plaintiff”) and Nancy A. Berryhill as the Acting Commissioner of Social
26
Security (“Defendant”), that this matter be dismissed with prejudice, each party to
27
28
-1-
1
bear its own fees, costs, and expenses. The parties enter into this stipulation
2
pursuant to the terms of F.R.Civ.P. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 41(a)(1)(B).
3
DATE: September 6, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
4
LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE D. ROHLFING
5
/s/ Young Cho
BY: __________________
Young Cho
Attorney for plaintiff Scott William Phariss
6
7
8
DATE: September 6, 2017
9
PHILIP A. TALBERT
United States Attorney
/s/ Beatrice Na*
10
BEATRICE NA
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
(*Per e-mail authorization from Carolyn B. Chen,
Assistant Regional Counsel)
11
12
13
14
15
16
ORDER
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
Dated:
September 7, 2017
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
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?