Pacelli v. Unum Group Supplemental Pension Plan et al

Filing 19

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 10/21/2010. (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2010)

Download PDF
1 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 Daniel Feinberg ­ Cal. Bar No. 135983 Lindsay Nako ­ Cal. Bar. No. 239090 LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 839-6824 Facsimile: (510) 839-7839 dfeinberg@lewisfeinberg.com lnako@lewisfeinberg.com Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CELESTE PACELLI, Plaintiff, v. UNUM GROUP SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN, HUMAN CAPITAL COMMITTEE OF THE UNUM GROUP BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Defendants. Case No. C10-03644 (CRB) NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1), Plaintiff Celeste Pacelli voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned action without prejudice in order to file an administrative appeal with Defendants Unum Group Supplemental Pension Plan and the Human Capital Committee of the Unum Group Board of Directors, and to have Defendants issue a decision on her appeal. Respectfully Submitted, DATED: October 19, 2010 LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C. By: /s/ Daniel Feinberg Attorneys for Plaintiff CELESTE PACELLI 1 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON Case No. C10-03644 (CRB) d 1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. UNIT ED 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 October 21, 2010 Date:____________________ By: ___________________________________ HON. CHARLES R. BREYER United States District DEREJudge Court D S S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O ER N F D IS T IC T O R 2 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON Case No. C10-03644 (CRB) A C LI FO J arles R udge Ch . Breyer R NIA IT IS S O OR NO RT H

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?