Jones v. Rite Aid Corporation
Filing
17
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 6/25/2018 ORDERING that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice, each side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)
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
Larry Jones
JEFFREY D. WOHL (Cal. State Bar No. 96838)
JULLIE Z. LAL (Cal. State Bar No. 279067)
W. TUCKER PAGE (Cal. State Bar No. 306728)
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
101 California Street, 48th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone:
(415) 856-7000
Facsimile:
(415) 856-7100
jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
jullielal@paullhastings.com
tuckerpage@paulhastings.com
Attorneys for Defendant
Rite Aid Corporation
14
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
18
LARRY JONES, an individual,
19
Plaintiff,
No. 2:17-CV-01527-JAM-EFB
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF
ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
20
vs.
Judge:
Dept.:
21
22
RITE AID CORPORATION, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive,
Hon. John A. Mendez
6, 14th Floor
Complaint Filed:
March 2, 2017
23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
U.S.D.C. E.D. CAL. NO. 2:17-CV-01527-JAM-EFB
LEGAL_US_W # 94487885.1
1
Plaintiff Larry Jones and defendant Rite Aid Corporation, acting through their respective counsel
2
of record, hereby stipulate that this action may be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to
3
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, each side to bear its own costs and attorneys’
4
fees.
5
6
Dated: June 25, 2018.
7
MATTHEW RIGHETTI
JOHN GLUGOSKI
MICHAEL RIGHETTI
RIGHETTI·GLUGOSKI, P.C.
8
By: /s/ Michael Righetti
Michael Righetti
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Larry Jones
9
10
11
12
Dated: June 25, 2018.
13
JEFFREY D. WOHL
JULLIE Z. LAL
W. TUCKER PAGE
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
14
By: /s/ Jullie Z. Lal
15
Jullie Z. Lal
Attorneys for Defendant
Rite Aid Corporation
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
U.S.D.C. E.D. CAL. NO. 2:17-CV-01527-JAM-EFB
LEGAL_US_W # 94487885.1
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
Larry Jones
JEFFREY D. WOHL (Cal. State Bar No. 96838)
JULLIE Z. LAL (Cal. State Bar No. 279067)
W. TUCKER PAGE (Cal. State Bar No. 306728)
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
101 California Street, 48th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone:
(415) 856-7000
Facsimile:
(415) 856-7100
jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
jullielal@paullhastings.com
tuckerpage@paulhastings.com
Attorneys for Defendant
Rite Aid Corporation
14
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
18
LARRY JONES, an individual,
19
Plaintiff,
No. 2:17-CV-01527-JAM-EFB
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE
20
vs.
Judge:
Dept.:
21
22
RITE AID CORPORATION, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive,
Hon. John A. Mendez
6, 14th Floor
Complaint Filed:
March 2, 2017
23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
U.S.D.C. E.D. CAL. NO. 2:17-CV-01527-JAM-EFB
LEGAL_US_W # 94487884.1
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: 6/25/2018
5
/s/ John A. Mendez_____________
Hon. John A. Mendez
United States District Court Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
U.S.D.C. E.D. CAL. NO. 2:17-CV-01527-JAM-EFB
LEGAL_US_W # 94487884.1
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?