Lull et al v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 42

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/11/17: Counts Three through Seven of the Second Amended Complaint are dismissed without prejudice. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5

CRIS C. VAUGHAN, SBN 99568
VAUGHAN & ASSOCIATES
6207 South Walnut Street, Suite 800
Loomis, CA 95650
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
916-660-9378
[e-mail]
Attorneys for AUTOTEK, INC. and
CHRISTOPHER LULL, Plaintiffs

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AUTOTEK, INC. and
CHRISTOPHER LULL,

12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
15

Case No. 2:16-cv-01093-KJM-CKD
STIPULATION BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF AND SMUD RE:
DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS
FROM THE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO
MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT; et al

16

Defendants.

17
18

WHEREAS the Court’s order of July 25, 2017 (Doc. 31), granted the Sacramento

19

Municipal Utility District’s (“SMUD”) motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, but

20

allowed Plaintiffs leave to amend their fifth, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh claims;

21
22

WHEREAS Plaintiffs timely filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 8,
2017 (Doc. 35);

23

WHEREAS Defendants’ response to the Second Amended Complaint is due on

24

October 13, 2017 (Doc. 39); WHEREAS, Cris C. Vaughan, Vaughan & Associates,

25

counsel for Plaintiffs, and Susan DeNardo, Murphy, Campbell, Alliston & Quinn, counsel
-1STIPULATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND SMUD RE: 2nd AMENDED COMPLAINT
2:16-cv-01093-KJM-CKD

1

for SMUD, met and conferred about SMUD’s proposed motion to dismiss the Second

2

Amended Complaint;

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

WHEREAS Plaintiffs and SMUD agreed that the Second Amended Complaint’s
addition of new causes of action is outside the scope of the leave to amend granted;
THEREFORE, the parties, by and through their counsel of record, hereby
stipulate as follows:
1.

Count Three of the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without

prejudice;
2.

Count Four of the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without

prejudice;
3.

Count Five of the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without

prejudice;
4.

Count Six of the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without

prejudice.
5.

Count Seven of the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without

prejudice.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: October 11, 2017

19

/s/ Cris C. Vaughan
CRIS C. VAUGHAN
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Autotek, Inc., and
Christopher Lull

20
21
22
23
24
25

VAUGHAN & ASSOCIATES

Dated: October 4, 2017

MURPHY, CAMPBELL,
ALLISTON & QUINN
/s/ Susan DeNardo
SUSAN DENARDO
Attorneys for Defendant Sacramento
Municipal Utility District

-2STIPULATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND SMUD RE: 2nd AMENDED COMPLAINT
2:16-cv-01093-KJM-CKD

ORDER

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

After considering the Stipulation by and between Plaintiffs and SMUD through
their counsel of record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Count Three of the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without

prejudice.
2.

Count Four of the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without

prejudice;
3.

Count Five of the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without

prejudice;
4.

Count Six of the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without

prejudice.
5.

Count Seven of the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without

prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: October 11, 2017.

16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-3STIPULATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND SMUD RE: 2nd AMENDED COMPLAINT
2:16-cv-01093-KJM-CKD