Lull et al v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 43

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/11/17: Defendants Manuel Mejia, Ben Green and Robert Logsdon are dismissed without prejudice. Count Nine of the Second Amended Complaint (Bane Act) is dismissed without prejudice. Count Twelve of the Second Amended Complaint (First Amendment Right of Access to the Court) is 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

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO
MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT; et al

16

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

Defendants.

17
18

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

19

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, but allowed Plaintiffs leave

20

to amend their claims for First Amendment retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional

21

distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress;

22
23
24
25

WHEREAS Plaintiffs timely filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 8,
2017 (Doc. 35);
WHEREAS Defendants’ response to the Second Amended Complaint is due on
October 13, 2017 (Doc. 39);
-1STIPULATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND COUNTY DEFENDANTS RE: 2nd AMENDED COMPLAINT
2:16-cv-01093-KJM-CKD

1

WHEREAS, Cris C. Vaughan, Vaughan & Associates, counsel for Plaintiffs, and

2

Wendy Motooka, Cregger & Chalfant, LLP, counsel for the County of Sacramento

3

Defendants, met and conferred about the County Defendants’ proposed motion to

4

dismiss and motion to strike the Second Amended Complaint;

5

WHEREAS Plaintiffs and the County Defendants agreed that the Second

6

Amended Complaint’s addition of new causes of action and new County employee

7

defendants is outside the scope of the leave to amend granted; and
WHEREAS the parties’ agreement on this point resolves all issues to be raised

8
9

by the County Defendants’ proposed motion to strike;

10
THEREFORE, the parties, by and through their counsel of record, hereby

11
12

stipulate as follows:
1.

13
14

dismissed without prejudice from the Second Amended Complaint;
2.

15
16

Defendants Manuel Mejia, Robert Logsdon, and Ben Green shall be

Count Nine of the Second Amended Complaint (Bane Act) shall be

dismissed without prejudice;
3.

17

Count Twelve of the Second Amended Complaint (First Amendment Right

18

of Access to the Court) shall be dismissed without prejudice.

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

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

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

1
2

Dated: October 11, 2017

3

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

4
5
6

VAUGHAN & ASSOCIATES

Dated: October 11, 2017

7

CREGGER & CHALFANT LLP
/s/ Wendy Motooka
WENDY MOTOOKA, SBN 233589
Attorneys for Defendants County of
Sacramento, Lori Moss, Leighann Moffitt, Brian
Washko, Robin Rasmussen, Bob Ivie, John
Muzinich, Scott Purvis, Russ Williams, Wayne
Eastman, June Powells-Mays, Tammy Derby,
Paul Munoz, Cyndi Lee, Florence Evans and
Jared Wickliff

8
9
10
11
12

ORDER

13
14

After considering the Stipulation by and between Plaintiffs and the County of

15

Sacramento Defendants through their counsel of record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

16

THAT:

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1.

Manual Mejia, Robert Logsdon, and Ben Green are dismissed as

defendants, without prejudice, from the Second Amended Complaint;
2.

Count Nine of the Second Amended Complaint (Bane Act) is dismissed

without prejudice; and
3.

Count Twelve of the Second Amended Complaint (First Amendment Right

of Access to the Court) is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 11, 2017.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3STIPULATION BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND COUNTY DEFENDANTS RE: 2nd AMENDED COMPLAINT
2:16-cv-01093-KJM-CKD