Eaglesmith et al v. Ray et al

Filing 63

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 12/30/2011 ORDERING that Plaintiffs alleged in their Sixth Claim for Relief of their First Amended Complaint that defendants violated the First Amendment rights of plaintiff J.C. Eaglesmith. The Court, in its Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' 50 Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike, observed that such allegations were redundant because they also appeared in plaintiffs' Eighth Claim for Relief, and therefor e dismissed them with prejudice. Plaintiffs inadvertently included those allegations in the Sixth Claim for Relief of their Second Amended Complaint. Therefore, plaintiffs and defendants hereby stipulate that those specific allegations be dismissed from the Sixth Claim for Relief of the Second Amended Complaint.(Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

DAN SIEGEL, SBN 56400
PETER HABERFELD, SBN 41723
DEAN ROYER, SBN 233292
SIEGEL & YEE
499 14th Street, Suite 220
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JERALD CLINTON (J.C.) EAGLESMITH,
RAMONA EAGLESMITH,
EILEEN COX, and BRUCE BARNES

9
10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

JERALD CLINTON (J.C.) EAGLESMITH, ) Case No. 2:11-CV-00098-JAM-JFM
RAMONA EAGLESMITH, EILEEN COX, )
and BRUCE BARNES,
) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
) DISMISS SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS OF
Plaintiffs,
) SECOND
vs.
) AMENDED COMPLAINT
)
JEFF RAY, as an individual, SUE
)
SEGURA, as an individual, and BOARD )
OF TRUSTEES OF PLUMAS COUNTY
)
OFFICE OF EDUCATION/ PLUMAS
)
COUNTY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, )
)
Defendants.
)
Plaintiffs alleged in their Sixth Claim for Relief of their First Amended Complaint

23

that defendants violated the First Amendment rights of plaintiff J.C. Eaglesmith. The

24

Court, in its Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

25

and Motion to Strike (Dkt. 50), observed that such allegations were redundant because

26
27
28

they also appeared in plaintiffs’ Eighth Claim for Relief, and therefore dismissed them
with prejudice. Plaintiffs inadvertently included those allegations in the Sixth Claim for
Relief of their Second Amended Complaint. Therefore, plaintiffs and defendants hereby
Eaglesmith v. Ray, Case No. 2:11-cv-00098-JAM-JFM
Stipulation and Order to Dismiss Specific Allegations of Second Amended Complaint - 1

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1

stipulate that those specific allegations be dismissed from the Sixth Claim for Relief of

2

the Second Amended Complaint.

3
4
5

Dated: December 16, 2011

SIEGEL & YEE
By: /s/Peter Haberfeld
Peter Haberfeld

6
7

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8
9
10

Dated: December 29, 2011

11

STUBBS & LEONE

12

By: /s/ Brian Duus
Brian Duus

13

Attorneys for Defendants

14
15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED:
Dated: 12/30/2011
/s/ John A. Mendez_____________
U. S. District Court Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Eaglesmith v. Ray, Case No. 2:11-cv-00098-JAM-JFM
Stipulation and Order to Dismiss Specific Allegations of Second Amended Complaint - 2
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com