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: (510) 839-1200
Facsimile: (510) 444-6698
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
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?