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)
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?