Johnson v. City of Oakland, California

Filing 11

STIPULATION AND ORDER for Dismissal of Plaintiff's Sixth Claim for Relief and Seventh Cause of Action. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 1/15/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2010) Modified on 1/20/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP Attorneys at Law

TIMOTHY G. YEUNG (SBN 186170) KERRY R. O'DONNELL (257872 ) RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94104-1304 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant CTTY OF OAKLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBRA TAYLOR JOHNSON, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF OAKLAND, Defendant.

Case No.: C09-05157 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (BREACH OF EXPRESS CONTRACT) AND SEVENTH CAUSEOF ACTION (BREACH OF IMPLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT)

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties to this action, by and through their attorneys of record do hereby agree and stipulate that: (1) Pursuant to meet-and-confer efforts between the parties, Plaintiff Debra Taylor Johnson shall, and hereby does, dismiss the following claims in her Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief, filed December 7, 2009: Sixth Claim for Relief (Breach of Express Contract) and Seventh Cause of Action (Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract).1 Defendant City of Oakland will not be required to respond to these claims in its responsive pleading;

The first six claims in the Amended Complaint were captioned as "Claim for Relief," while the last claim was inadvertently captioned as "Cause of Action." The difference in captions is immaterial, but is noted for purposes of clarity.

1

1
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (BREACH OF EXPRESS CONTRACT) AND SEVENTH CAUSEOF ACTION (BREACH OF IMPLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT) ­ CASE NO.: C09-05157

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP Attorneys at Law

(2) The parties agree that no adverse inferences shall be drawn from the withdrawal of these claims. IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: January 14, 2010 LAW OFFICES OF SHEILA THOMAS By:______________________________________ Sheila Y. Thomas Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: January 14, 2010 RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP By:______________________________________ Timothy G. Yeung Attorneys for City of Oakland

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (BREACH OF EXPRESS CONTRACT) AND SEVENTH CAUSEOF ACTION (BREACH OF IMPLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT) ­ CASE NO.: C09-05157

ORDER Pursuant to the above Stipulation, Plaintiff's Sixth Claim for Relief (Breach of Express Contract) and Seventh Cause of Action (Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract) are hereby dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs and fees with respect to these claims. No adverse inference shall be drawn from the withdrawal/dismissal of these claims. Dated: 1/15/10 ______________________________________ Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong