Stewart, et al. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.

Filing 33

STIPULATION and ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 08/15/2018. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Crystal Foley (SBN 224627)
[e-mail]
Paul J. Hanley, Jr.(pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Mitchell M. Breit (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC
100 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1350
Los Angeles, CA 90245
Phone: [phone]
Gregory F. Coleman (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Lisa A. White (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Greg Coleman Law PC
First Tennessee Plaza
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SHELLEY STEWART and ROBERT STEWART

14
[additional counsel listed on next page]
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17
18
19

SHELLEY STEWART and ROBERT
STEWART, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

20
21
22
23

Case No.: 1:17-CV-01213-LJO-SKO
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL; ORDER
(Doc. 32)

v.

Action Filed:
Trial Date:

September 8, 2017
None Set

ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendant.

24
25
26
27

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL; ORDER

1
2
3
4
5
6

Phillip J. Eskenazi (SBN 158976)
[e-mail]
Jason J. Kim (SBN 221476)
[e-mail]
Kenneth P. Hsu (SBN 306326)
[e-mail]
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, California 90071-2627
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7
8

Attorneys for Defendant
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL; ORDER

1

TO THE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

2

WHEREAS, on September 8, 2017, Plaintiffs Shelley Stewart and Robert Stewart

3

(“Plaintiffs”) filed a class action complaint asserting eleven (11) causes of action against Defendant

4

Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (“Electrolux”) in the above-captioned action;
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part Electrolux’s

5
6

motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ class action complaint;

7
8

WHEREAS, on January 23, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint
asserting seven (7) causes of action against Electrolux;
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part Electrolux’s

9
10

motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended class action complaint;

11

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ remaining causes of action against Electrolux, asserted individually

12

and on behalf of putative class members, are: (1) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15

13

U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.; (2) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code §

14

1790 et seq.; and (3) unjust enrichment.
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2018, Electrolux filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ amended class action

15
16

complaint; and

17

WHEREAS, the parties desire to compromise and settle all matters and issues in dispute

18

between them, including the above-captioned action, to avoid the uncertainty, inconvenience, and

19

expense of further litigation;

20

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties

21

stipulate to: (1) the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ individual claims against Electrolux with prejudice; and

22

(2) the dismissal of the putative class member claims without prejudice.

23

\\

24

\\

25

\\

26

\\

27

\\

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL; ORDER

1

Dated: August 14, 2018

SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC

2
By:

/s/ Crystal Foley
Crystal Foley
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SHELLEY STEWART AND
ROBERT STEWART

3
4
5
6

Dated: August 14, 2018

HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP

7
By:

8
9
10
11

/s/ Phillip J. Eskenazi
(as authorized on August 14, 2018)
Phillip J. Eskenazi
Attorneys for Defendant
ELECTROLUX
HOME PRODUCTS, INC.

12
13

ORDER

14

On August 14, 2018, the parties filed the above stipulation dismissing Plaintiffs Shelly

15

Stewart’s and Robert Stewart’s individual claims with prejudice, and the putative class claims

16

without prejudice. (Doc. 32.)
In light of the parties’ stipulation, Plaintiffs’ individual claims have been dismissed with

17
18

prejudice, the putative class claims have been dismissed without prejudice, and this action has

19

been terminated. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692

20

(9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 15, 2018

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL; ORDER

.