Rice v. Bauer et al
Filing
93
STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 9/20/18 DISMISSING CASE with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
XAVIER BECERRA, State Bar No. 118517
Attorney General of California
R. LAWRENCE BRAGG, State Bar No. 119194
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
MARTHA EHLENBACH, State Bar No. 291582
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: (916) 210-7314
Fax: (916) 324-5205
E-mail: Martha.Ehlenbach@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendants Bauer and Rodriguez
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
11
12
KORDY RICE,
13
2:15-cv-0236 JAM EFB (PC)
Plaintiff,
14
v.
STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND
ORDER
(Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii))
15
D. BAUER, et al.,
16
Judge:
The Honorable Edmund F. Brennan
Trial Date:
Not Set
Defendants. Action Filed: January 28, 2015
17
The parties have resolved this case in its entirety. Therefore, the parties stipulate to a
18
19
dismissal of this action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Stip. Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice and Order (2:15-cv-0236 JAM EFB (PC))
1
Each party shall bear its own litigation costs and attorney’s fees.
2
It is so stipulated.
3
4
Dated:
9/12/2018
/s/ Kordy Rice
Kordy Rice (V-43736)
Plaintiff
Dated:
9/12/2018
/s/ Martha Ehlenbach
Martha Ehlenbach
Deputy Attorney General
California Attorney General’s Office
Attorney for Defendants Bauer and Rodriguez
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 20, 2018
13
/s/ John A. Mendez
John A. Mendez
United States District Court Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
SA2015300932
33553974.docx
28
2
Stip. Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice and Order (2:15-cv-0236 JAM EFB (PC))
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?