Mansdorf v. Roth
Filing
30
STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL re 29 Stipulation filed by Paul J. Mansdorf, David L. Roth. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/8/10. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2010)
Mansdorf v. Roth
Doc. 30
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 -15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PINNACLE LAW GROUP LLP
JEREMY W. KATZ (SBN: 119418) PINNACLE LAW GROUP LLP 425 California Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 394-5700 Facsimile: (415) 394-5003 Attorneys for Plaintiff PAUL J. MANSDORF, TRUSTEE EDWARD D. HAAS (SBN: 76647) ROECA HAAS HAGER LLP 351 California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 352-0980 Facsimile: (415) 352-0988 Attorneys for Defendant DAVID L. ROTH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA District Court Case No. CV 09-1903 EMC Chapter 7 Case No. 08-42400 EDJ 7 Adversary Proceeding No. 09-04152 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF CASE WITH PREJUDICE F.R.C.P. § 41(A)(ii)
PAUL J. MANSDORF, Trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Ronald Chester Williams, Debtor, Plaintiff,
DAVID L. ROTH, an individual, Defendant.
PLAINTIFF Paul J. Mansdorf, Trustee and DEFENDANT David L. Roth, by and through their respective counsel, stipulate to the dismissal of this case with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. § 41(A)(ii).
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
425 CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE 1800 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 99104 (415) 399-5700
1871.034
1
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
Dockets.Justia.com
Dated: September_, 2010 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PINNACLE LAW GROUP LI, a, CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE !ROO SAN rxraucisco. en 94104 (41S)3,1.5700
PINNACLE LAW GROUP LLP By:
JEREMY W. KATZ Attorneys for Plaintiff PAUL J. MANSDORF, TRUSTEE
Dated: September
, 2010 By:
ROECA HAAS HAGER LLP -t--,
EDWARD ID. AA Attorneys for Defe ant DAVID L. ROTH
1871.034
2
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
Dated: September?, 2010 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
eINNAcLE LAW °Roue LLe 425 CALIFORNIA STREET Surre 1800 SAN FRANCISCO, CA
PINNACLE LAW GROUP LLP By: Y . KA Z JE Atto eys or Plaintiff PA J. MANSDORF, RUSTEE
Dated: September
, 2010 By:
ROECA HAAS HAGER LLP
EDWARD D. HAAS Attorneys for Defendant DAVID L. ROTH
UNIT ED
S
S DISTRICT TE IT IS SO ORDERED: C TA
ER
N
F D IS T IC T O R
A
C
LI
2
FO
Edward M. Chen U.S. Magistrate Judge en d M. Ch e Edwar Judg
R NIA
OO IT I S _________________ S
NO
D RDERE
RT U O
RT
H
1871.034
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
94104 (415)394-5700
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PINNACLE LAW GROUP LLP 425 CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE 1800 SAN FRANCISCO, CA
I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court in the City and County o f San Francisco, at whose direction this service was made. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 425 California Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, California 94104. On September 7, 2010, I caused to be served the document described as: STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF CASE WITH PREJUDICE on the interested parties in this action by placing [J the original [X] true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Attorneys for Defendant Edward D. Haas ROECA HAAS HAGER LLP 351 California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Chambers Copies (by mail): Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen United States District Court Northern District of California Clerk's Office th 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16 Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 E-FILING CHAMBERS COPIES Case No. 09-cv-01903 EMC [X] BY E-MAIL: Service was accomplished through the Notice of Electronic Filing for parties and counsel who are registered ECF Users.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 7, 2010, at San Francisco, California. /s/ Mike Terry Mike Terry
1871.034
3
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
94104 (415)394-5700
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?