Castleman et al v. Paul Law Offices

Filing 18

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1), signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/14/09. CASE CLOSED(Kastilahn, A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plaintiffs, 13 vs. 14 PAUL LAW OFFICES, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
0 5 7 9 6 :0 0 :1 5 7 1 8 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION JAMES CASTLEMAN and SUZANNE CASTLEMAN-CUMMINGS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 08-CV-01803-LKK-GGH District Judge: Lawrence K. Karlton ORDER RE DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION AND ALL PARTIES WITH PREJUDICE FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH STIPULATION RE DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION AND ALL PARTIES, WITH PREJUDICE] Magistrate Judge: Hon. Gregory G. Hollows

The Court has reviewed the Stipulation of Plaintiffs JAMES CASTLEMAN AND SUZANNE CASTLEMAN-CUMMINGS, and Defendant PAUL LAW OFFICES to dismiss with prejudice the above-entitled action, in its entirety. Pursuant to the Stipulation between the parties, the Court orders as follows: /// ///
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE STIPULATION RE DISM I S S A L OF ENTIRE ACTION 08-CV-01803-LKK-GGH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1.

That the above-entitled lawsuit is hereby dismissed, with prejudice,

pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1). Each party shall bear their own costs and expenses. The Court shall retain jurisdiction solely for settlement enforcement purposes. IT IS SO ORDERED DATED: September 14, 2009.

0 5 7 9 6 :0 0 :1 5 7 1 8 1

2

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE STIPULATION RE DISM I S S A L OF ENTIRE ACTION 08-CV-01803-LKK-GGH