Casildo, et al. v. Esparza Enterprises, Inc

Filing 57

STIPULATION RE: DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); ORDER 56 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/30/2020. CASE CLOSED (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

ERIC B. KINGSLEY, Esq. (SBN 185123)
[e-mail]
KELSEY M. SZAMET, Esq. (SBN 260264)
[e-mail]
ARI J. STILLER, Esq. (SBN 294676)
[e-mail]
KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
Encino, CA 91436
[phone], Fax [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Daniel K. Klingenberger, Esq. (SBN 131134)
Kelly A. Lazerson, Esq. (SBN 151056)
LAW OFFICES OF
LEBEAU • THELEN, LLP
5001 East Commercenter Drive, Suite 300
Post Office Box 12092
Bakersfield, California 93389-2092
[phone]; Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Esparza Enterprises, Inc.

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18
19
20

OLGA CASILDO; JAIME CHINO
SEVERIANO, as individuals, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00601-LJO-JLT
STIPULATION RE: DISMISSAL OF
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS WITH
PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER
(Doc. 56)

21
PLAINTIFFS,
22
v.
23
24

ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC; and DOES
1 thru 50, inclusive,
DEFENDANTS.

25
26
27
28
{00209600;1}

1
STIPULATION RE: DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE

1

Plaintiffs Olga Casildo, Jaime Chino Severiano, Ofelia Tornes Aguilar, Juan Carlos

2

Veronica Loreto, Moises Veronica Loreto, Marisela Serna, Hermina Veronica Loreto, Margarita

3

Casildo Bailon, Emanuel Casimiro Nandi, Elida Ramirez, and Jasmin Castro Grande (“Plaintiffs”)

4

and Defendant Esparza Enterprises, Inc. (“Esparza” or “Defendant”), by and through their

5

respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

6
7

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs are a group of 11 current and former field workers who allege wageand-hour violations against Defendant;

8

WHEREAS, this matter was originally filed as a class action, but after filing, Defendant

9

resolved the class claims through the settlement in a related case, Clendenen v. Esparza

10

Enterprises, Inc. et al., (“Clendenen”) Case No. S-1500-CV-281278-SPC, filed February 10, 2014

11

in Kern County Superior Court;

12
13
14
15

WHEREAS, several employees appealed the order approving the Clendenen settlement
and this Court stayed the instant matter while the appeal was pending;
WHEREAS, the Court lifted the stay after the Clendenen appeal was dismissed and the
settlement became final (Doc. 16);

16

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed amended complaints removing class allegations and adding

17

claims for the above-named 11 individual Plaintiffs who had opted out of the Clendenen settlement

18

(see Docs. 17, 27, 23, 30);

19

WHEREAS, on November 1, 2019, the Parties filed a joint Notice of Settlement in

20

Principle, advising the Court that they had reached a settlement in principle and were negotiating

21

the terms of a written agreement (Doc. 51);

22

WHEREAS, the Court has now ordered the parties to file a stipulation of dismissal by

23

February 3, 2020 and to clarify whether the action has settled only the individual claims of the

24

named Plaintiffs or whether the claims of the class have likewise been settled;

25

WHEREAS, the parties have entered into a settlement of only the individual claims as

26

those are the only claims now at issue following the earlier stipulated and ordered dismissal of

27

class claims (see Doc. 16, fn. 1; Docs. 17, 23, 30);

28

WHEREAS, the parties have entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and
{00209600;1}

2
STIPULATION RE: DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE

1

General Release of All Claims requiring the Plaintiffs to dismiss the current case with prejudice;

2

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and

3

agree to the dismissal with prejudice of this action and of all claims raised herein against

4

Defendants.

5
6

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED: January 30, 2020

KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC

7
By: /s/ Ari J. Stiller
Eric B. Kingsley
Ari J. Stiller
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

8
9
10
11

DATED: January 30, 2020

LEBEAU • THELEN, LLP

12
By: /s/ Kelly Lazerson
Kelly Lazerson
Attorneys for Defendant Esparza Enterprises, Inc.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{00209600;1}

3
STIPULATION RE: DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE

1
2

ORDER
The parties have settled their case and have stipulated to the action being dismissed with

3

prejudice. (Doc. 56) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41 makes such stipulations

4

effective immediately with further order of the Court. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688,

5

692 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 30, 2020

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{00209600;1}

4
ORDER RE: DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE