Handal et al v. Center for Employment Training et al

Filing 133

STIPULATION and ORDER MODIFYING 131 ORDER OF DISMISSAL signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/24/2019 DISMISSING the First Amended Complaint with prejudice. (Becknal, R)

Clayeo C. Arnold, SBN 65070
Anthony M. Ontiveros, SBN 152758
Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kathleen M. Rhoads (SBN: 144466)
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Larry S. Gondelman (District of Columbia SBN: 950691)
Powers Pyles Sutter & Verville PC
1501 M Street, NW, Seventh Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States of America and State of
California, ex rel. Rebecca Handal, et al.,
vs.

Case No.: 2:13-cv-1697 KJM KJN

Plaintiffs,

Center For Employment Training,

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
MODIFYING ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendant.

The Parties hereby stipulate to the modification of the Court’s Order of Dismissal entered
on October 7, 2019 as set forth below. This Stipulation is entered into by and among plaintiffs

1

Rebecca Handal, Dina Dominguez, and Elicia Fernandez (“Relators” or “Plaintiffs”), former
plaintiff and Relator Christine Stearns, and defendant Center for Employment Training (“CET”
or “Defendant”), by their respective authorized representatives (collectively, “Parties”).
On July 17, 2019, the parties stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of Christine
Stearns as Relator in the above-captioned matter as well as of all claims brought by Christine
Stearns in her capacity as an individual Plaintiff. On September 5, 2019, the Court ordered the
United States and the State of California to notify the Court of their position on the proposed
dismissal of Christine Stearns. The United States and the State of California filed a Joint
Response to this Order on September 10, 2019. In that Joint Response, the United States and the
State of California advised the Court that they consent to the dismissal with prejudice of Stearns
as a Relator and in her capacity as an individual Plaintiff. They did not consent to the dismissal
with prejudice at that time of any claims brought by Stearns on behalf of the Government. The
reason for this exclusion was the fact that the settlement between the parties had not yet been
finalized. On September 12, 2019, the Court entered an Order pursuant to which Christine
Stearns was dismissed, with prejudice, from this action in her individual capacity as relator. This
dismissal did not constitute dismissal of claims brought by Stearns on behalf of the government.
Once the parties had finalized the settlement of this matter they filed a Stipulation of
Dismissal on September 19, 2019 in which they sought a dismissal of the First Amended
Complaint with prejudice. This Stipulation noted that the United States and the State of
California had no objection to the dismissal of the First Amended Complaint with prejudice.
This Court entered an Order on October 7, 2019 in which the Court clarified the parties’
proposed Stipulation and Order and dismissed the First Amended Complaint and all remaining
claims not previously dismissed with prejudice, but dismissed without prejudice the claims

2

brought by Stearns on behalf of the government. This clarification by the Court appears to have
been a recognition of the qualification expressed by the government to the proposed dismissal of
the claims of Christine Stearns.
The settlement between the parties is conditioned on the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims, including the claims brought by Christine Stearns on behalf of the government. Given
that the government has approved the settlement, they no longer require the clarification that the
claims brought on their behalf by Christine Stearns be dismissed without prejudice. Both
Assistant United States Attorney Vincente Tennerelli and Deputy Attorney General Kenneth
Sugarman advised CET’s attorney, Larry S. Gondelman, by e-mail on October 8, 2019, that they
have no objection to the Court modifying its Order of October 7 to include the dismissal with
prejudice of the claims brought by Christine Stearns on behalf of the government.
Therefore, the parties hereby Stipulate with the consent of the government that the Court
should modify its October 7 Order and dismiss the First Amended Complaint with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/_Anthony M. Ontiveros
Anthony M. Ontiveros
Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
/s/_Larry S. Gondelman
Larry S. Gondelman
Powers Pyles Sutter & Verville PC
1501 M Street, NW, Seventh Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
3

SO ORDERED:
Dated: October 24, 2019.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4