Martel v. Cadjew et al

Filing 40

STIPULATION and ORDER 39 for Dismissal signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/5/2012. Parties agree to dismiss action with prejudice as to all defendants. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 JAMES W. RUSHFORD, ESQ. State Bar No. 88739 AMANDA R. STEVENS, ESQ. State Bar No. 252350 RUSHFORD & BONOTTO, LLP 2277 Fair Oaks Blvd., Suite 495 Sacramento, California 95825 (916) 565-0590 5 6 Attorneys for Defendants, FRANK CADJEW and JULIE CADJEW 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD MARTEL, an individual, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 vs. FRANK & JULIE CADJEW, a Married Couple, UNKNOWN DOES 1-20, Defendants. ) Case No.: 11-CV-00509-JAM-EFB) PS ) ) ) STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL ) ) ) ) ) 16 17 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and among the parties to this action 18 that the above-captioned action be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice 19 as to all defendants. 20 Dated: March 5, 2012 21 By: /s/_____________________ 22 Richard Martel, PLAINTIFF PRO SE 23 Dated: March 5, 2012 RUSHFORD & BONOTTO, LLP 24 25 26 27 By:/s/_____________________ JAMES W. RUSHFORD Attorney for Defendants, FRANK CADJEW and JULIE CADJEW 28 1 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com 1 THE PARTIES HAVING STIPULATED: the above matter is ordered 2 dismissed with prejudice. 3 Dated: 3/5/2012 4 /s/ John A. Mendez__________________ 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP §§1013(a) and 2015.5) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I, RACHEL PETERSON, declare that: I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in Sacramento County, California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is 2277 Fair Oaks Blvd., Suite 495, Sacramento, California 95825. On March 5, 2012, I served the attached document entitled STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL on the following parties as listed below: 8 9 10 Plaintiff in Pro Per Phone: (916) 622-4404 Fax: richardmartel@gmail.com Richard Martel P.O. Box 634 Roseville, CA 95661 11 12 13 The following is the procedure in which service of this document was affected: Via First Class Mail (placing sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with this office’s practice, whereby mail is deposited in a U.S. mailbox in Sacramento County at the close of the business day). XX 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Via Notice of Electronic Service – Counsel who have consented to electronic service have been automatically served by the Notice of Electronic Filing, which is automatically generated by United States District Court Electronic Case Filing OR Lexis/Nexis Electronic Filing and Service at the time said document was filed. Via Personal Service – By personally delivering or causing to be personally delivered a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope(s). 22 23 24 Via Facsimile Machine before sealing envelope. The document was transmitted by facsimile transmission and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. The transmission report was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. 25 26 27 28 Via Overnight Delivery Service – I caused such envelope(s) to be deposited in a box or other facility maintained by the express service carrier or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid or provided. 3 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com 1 2 3 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 5, 2012, in Sacramento, California. 4 5 RACHEL PETERSON 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL 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?