Bauser v. Rite Aid Corporation

Filing 66

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 8/14/17. Each side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. CASE CLOSED.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 MATTHEW RIGHETTI (Cal. State Bar No. 121012) JOHN GLUGOSKI (Cal. State Bar No. 191551) MICHAEL RIGHETTI (Cal. State Bar No. 258541) RIGHETTI·GLUGOSKI, P.C. 456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 Facsimile: (415) 397-9005 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff Tom Bauser JEFFREY D. WOHL (Cal. State Bar No. 096838) JUSTIN M. SCOTT (Cal. State Bar No. 302502) CAITLIN M. WANG (Cal. State Bar No. 311901) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 jeffwohl@paulhastings.com justinscott@paulhastings.com caitlinmarianwang@paulhastings.com Attorneys for Defendant Rite Aid Corporation 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 TOM BAUSER, No. 2:14-CV-01946-JAM-EFB 19 Plaintiff, STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 20 vs. Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez Complaint Filed: Trial Date: August 29, 2013 None Set 21 22 RITE AID CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF ACTION U.S.D.C. E.D. CAL. NO. 2:14-CV-01946-JAM-EFB LEGAL_US_W # 90836342.1 1 Plaintiff Tom Bauser and defendant Rite Aid Corporation, acting through their respective 2 counsel of record, hereby stipulate that this action may be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 3 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, each side to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. 4 5 Dated: August 10, 2017. 6 MATTHEW RIGHETTI JOHN GLUGOSKI MICHAEL RIGHETTI RIGHETTI·GLUGOSKI, P.C. 7 By: /s/ Michael Righetti Michael Righetti Attorneys for Plaintiff Tom Bauser 8 9 10 11 Dated: August 10, 2017. 12 JEFFREY D. WOHL JUSTIN M. SCOTT CAITLIN M. WANG PAUL HASTINGS LLP 13 By: /s/ Justin M. Scott 14 Justin M. Scott Attorneys for Defendant Rite Aid Corporation 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1LEGAL_US_W # 90836342.1 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF ACTION U.S.D.C. E.D. CAL. NO. 2:14-CV-01946-JAM-EFB 1 2 3 4 MATTHEW RIGHETTI (Cal. State Bar No. 121012) JOHN GLUGOSKI (Cal. State Bar No. 191551) MICHAEL RIGHETTI (Cal. State Bar No. 258541) RIGHETTI·GLUGOSKI, P.C. 456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 Facsimile: (415) 397-9005 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff Tom Bauser JEFFREY D. WOHL (Cal. State Bar No. 096838) JUSTIN M. SCOTT (Cal. State Bar No. 302502) CAITLIN M. WANG (Cal. State Bar No. 311901) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 jeffwohl@paulhastings.com justinscott@paulhastings.com caitlinmarianwang@paulhastings.com Attorneys for Defendant Rite Aid Corporation 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 TOM BAUSER, No. 2:14-CV-01946-JAM-EFB 19 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 20 vs. Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez Complaint Filed: Trial Date: August 29, 2013 None Set 21 22 RITE AID CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION U.S.D.C. E.D. CAL. NO. 2:14-CV-01946-JAM-EFB LEGAL_US_W # 90836343.1 1 Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor, 2 IT IS ORDERED that this action be and hereby is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each side 3 4 to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. Dated: 8/14/2017 /s/ John A. Mendez_____________ Hon. John A. Mendez United States District Court Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1LEGAL_US_W # 90836343.1 ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION U.S.D.C. E.D. CAL. NO. 2:14-CV-01946-JAM-EFB

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?