Hardesty et al v. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District et al

Filing 753

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/14/23 DISMISSING action with prejudice as to all defendants and in its entirety, with each Party to bear his own attorneys' fees and costs. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

GLENN W. PETERSON, ESQ. (SBN: 126173)
[e-mail]
PETERSON WATTS LAW GROUP, LLP
2267 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 210
Roseville, California 95661
Telephone: [phone]
RICHARD M. ROSS, ESQ. (SBN: 59943)
[e-mail]
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD M. ROSS
8081 North Forbes Road
Lincoln, California 95648
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs .Y L. SCHNEIDER, SUSAN J. SCHNEIDER, JAKE J. SCHNEIDER,
LELAND A. SCHNEIDER, KATHERINE A. SCHNEIDER, LELAND H. SCHNEIDER, and
JARED T. SCHNEIDER
DEREK COLE, Bar No. 204250
[e-mail]
COLE HUBER LLP
2281 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 300
Roseville, CA 95661
Telephone: [phone]
Co-Counsel for Defendant
SACRAMENTO COUNTY

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO DIVISION

17
18
19
20
21

CASE NO. 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN

JAY L. SCHNEIDER, ET AL.,

STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE AND ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL.,

Judge:
Dept:

Defendant(s).

Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller
3

22
23

STIPULATION

24

WHEREAS, a jury found the County liable for violating Plaintiffs’ procedural

25

and substantive due process rights and awarded damages, and the County filed

26

motions for judgment after trial and new trial, which District Judge Kimberly J.

27

Mueller denied by order dated March 31, 2018.

28
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND
ORDER
Page 1

1

WHEREAS, the County appealed the jury's verdict to the United States Court

2

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit, by memorandum opinion dated

3

August 19, 2020, upheld the jury’s finding of liability for violation of due process

4

as to the County. The Court affirmed the jury’s finding that the County acted

5

arbitrarily and unreasonably to deprive the Schneiders of their constitutional rights.

6

However, the Ninth Circuit reversed liability as to the individual Defendants on

7

grounds of immunity and reversed and remanded damages to the District Court as

8

the jury’s award of damages was excessive.

9

WHEREAS, the Court had previously set this case for a second jury trial on

10

October 11, 2023 limited to determining the amount of damages caused to the

11

Plaintiffs by the County’s actions.

12

WHEREAS, prior to said trial date, the Parties hereto reached and entered

13

into a Settlement Agreement, which this Court has affirmed and ordered its

14

enforcement

15

WHEREAS, on October 6, 2023, the Court (ECF 746 Hardesty) ordered

16

enforcement of the settlement agreement made by the Parties and for the County to

17

make payment to Plaintiffs by October 26, 2023. Payment having been received the

18

settlement agreement requires Plaintiffs to dismiss the action with prejudice which

19

is requested by this pleading.

20

WHEREAS, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

21

provides that a Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order

22

by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.

23

WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate that this action be dismissed with

24

prejudice as to all Defendants and in its entirety, with each Party to bear his own

25

attorneys’ fees and costs, and that the Court may enter the following order upon this

26

stipulation.

27
28

///
///
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND
ORDER
Page 2

1
2

SO STIPULATED.

Dated: November 7, 2023

3

COLE HUBER LLP
By:

4
5

Attorney for Defendant
SACRAMENTO COUNTY

6
7

Dated: November 7, 2023

8

PETERSON WATTS LAW GROUP, LLP
By:

9

/s/ Glenn W. Peterson
Glenn W. Peterson, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
THE SCHNEIDER FAMILY

10
11

/s/ Derek P. Cole
Derek P. Cole, Esq.

Dated: November 7, 2023

LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD M. ROSS

12

By:

13
14

/s/ Richard Ross
Richard Ross, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
THE SCHNEIDER FAMILY

15
16

ORDER

17

Pursuant to the above stipulation, and for good cause appearing therefore, it

18

is hereby ordered that the above action shall be dismissed with prejudice as to all

19

Defendants and in its entirety, with each Party to bear his own attorneys’ fees and

20

costs.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 14, 2023.

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND
ORDER
Page 3