Lally v. Rabobank, N.A.
Filing
47
STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 1/16/2015 DISMISSING CASE with prejudice, pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(ii). CASE CLOSED (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Charles L. Post, State Bar No. 160443
Meagan D. Bainbridge, State Bar No. 240679
weintraub tobin chediak coleman grodin
law corporation
400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: 916/558.6000
Facsimile:
916/446.1611
Attorneys for Defendant
RABOBANK, N.A.
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
JASBIR LALLY,
12
13
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
RABOBANK, N.A., DOES 1-10,
15
law corporation
weintraub tobin chediak coleman grodin
10
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIM
Case No. 2:13-cv-00130-JAM-CKD
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH
PREJDUCE AND ORDER
Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez
Complaint Filed: January 22, 2013
Counterclaim Filed: February 12, 2013
Trial Date: N/A
Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule
160, Plaintiff, JASBIR LALLY and Defendant, RABOBANK, N.A., stipulate herein to dismiss
this action with prejudice, in its entirety, pursuant to a private Settlement Agreement.
Dated: January 14, 2015
25
LAW OFFICES OF ALDON BOLANOS
By:
26
/s/ - Aldon L. Bolanos
Aldon L. Bolanos
Attorney for Plaintiff Jasbir Lally
27
28
{1862321.DOC;}
1
Stipulation and Order for Dismissal
1
Dated: January 14, 2015
weintraub tobin chediak coleman grodin
LAW CORPORATION
2
3
By:
4
5
/s/ - Charles L. Post
Charles L. Post
Meagan D. Bainbridge
Attorneys for Defendant
RABOBANK, N.A.
6
7
ORDER
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
Dated: January 16, 2015
12
/s/ John A. Mendez_______________
Judge, United States District Court
13
14
15
law corporation
weintraub tobin chediak coleman grodin
10
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{1862321.DOC;}
2
Stipulation and Order for Dismissal
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?