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)

Download PDF
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?