Johnson v. Shahryar Sefidpour D.D.S., M.S.D., Inc. et al

Filing 26

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 01/08/10 ORDERING that dfts Mojgan Sefidpour and Shahryar Sefidpour D.D.S., M.S.D., Inc. are DISMISSED with prejudice per 41 (a)(2). (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
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 SCOTT N. JOHNSON, ESQ., SBN 166952 DISABLED ACCESS PREVENTS INJURY, INC. 5150 FAIR OAKS BLVD., SUITE 101 PMB #253 CARMICHAEL, CA 95608-5758 TELEPHONE (916) 485-3516 FAX (916) 481-4224 E-MAIL scottnjohnson@comcast.net Attorney for Plaintiff Scott N. Johnson IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No.: CIV.S-09-02088-FCD-EFB STIPULATED DISMISSAL OF SHAHRYAR SEFIDPOUR D.D.S., M.S.D., INC., and MOJAN SEFIDPOUR ONLY; ORDER Complaint Filed: July 29, 2009 CASE TO BE REMAINED OPEN WITH REMAINING DEFENDANTS SCOTT N. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, vs. SHAHRYAR SEFIDPOUR D.D.S., M.S.D., INC., et. al., Defendants. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by Plaintiff, Scott N. Johnson, that Defendants (Shahryar Sefidpour D.D.S., M.S.D., Inc.; Mojan Sefidpour) be and are hereby dismissed WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to FRCP 41 (a)(2). This case is to be remained open with remaining Defendants. Defendants (Shahryar Sefidpour D.D.S., M.S.D., Inc.; Mojan Sefidpour) are dismissed because Plaintiff and these Defendants have settled their dispute. Dated: January 6, 2010 /s/Scott N. Johnson____________ SCOTT N. JOHNSON Attorney for Plaintiff 1 CIV: S-09-02088-FCD-EFB 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 Dated: January ___, 2010 ____/s/________________________ DANIEL BAXTER Attorney for Defendants, SHAHRYAR SEFIDPOUR D.D.S., M.S.D., INC.; MOJAN SEFIDPOUR IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 8, 2010 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 CIV: S-09-02088-FCD-EFB

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?