Alicea v. Walgreen Co. et al
Filing
18
STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 11/14/11. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
REX DARRELL BERRY, State Bar No. 110219
BRIAN CRONE, State Bar No. 191731
BERRY & BLOCK LLP
2150 River Plaza Drive, Suite 415
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 564-2000
(916) 564-2024 FAX
Attorneys for Defendant
WALGREEN CO.
7
8
9
10
11
12
PAMELA PITT, State Bar No. 156395
MARIA BOURN, State Bar No. 269322
LAW OFFICE OF PAMELA PITT
22 Battery Street, Suite 1000
(415) 291-9251
(415) 291-9252
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ROSA ALICEA
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
15
16
ROSA ALICEA,
Plaintiff,
17
18
19
20
v.
WALGREEN CO., GERALD T. WONG,
and DOES 1 through 20,
Defendants.
21
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:11-CV-02462-JCS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE
Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)
All parties hereby stipulate that the action be dismissed with prejudice.
22
23
Dated: November 9, 2011
/s/ Pamela Pitt, Esq.
Pamela Pitt
Attorney for Plaintiff Rosa Alicea
Dated: November 9, 2011
/s/ Brian Crone, Esq.
Brian Crone
Attorney for Defendant Walgreen Co.
24
25
26
27
28
29
1
30
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
11/14/11
Dated: ______________
UNIT
ED
NO
Spero
seph C.
RT
4
Judge Jo
ER
A
H
5
FO
3
R NIA
_____________________________
Honorable Joseph C. Spero
LI
2
S
IT IS SO ORDERED.
RT
U
O
1
ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
2
30
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
1
2
Alicea v. Walgreens, et al.
San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-11-507948
U.S.D.C., Northern District, Case No. 3:11-CV-02462-JCS
3
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
4
I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to or
interested in this action. I am an employee of Berry & Block LLP, and my business address is
2150 River Plaza Drive, Suite 415, Sacramento, CA 95833. On this day I caused to be served the
following document(s):
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
by placing
follows:
the original
a true copy into sealed envelopes addressed and served as
Attorney for Plaintiff
Pamela Pitt
LAW OFFICE OF PAMELA PITT
22 Battery Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 291-9251; Fax: (415) 291-9252
14
BY MAIL: I am familiar with this firm’s practice whereby the mail, after being placed in
a designated area, is given fully prepaid postage and is then deposited with the U.S. Postal
Service at Sacramento, California, after the close of the day’s business.
15
BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand.
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BY OVERNIGHT COURIER: I caused such envelope to be placed for collection and
delivery in accordance with standard overnight delivery procedures for delivery the next
business day.
BY FACSIMILE: I caused such documents(s) to be transmitted by facsimile
transmission from (916) 564-2024 to the person(s) and facsimile transmission without
number(s) shown about. The facsimile transmission was reported as complete without
error and a transmission report was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine.
A true and correct copy of the transmission report will be attached to this proof of service
after facsimile service is completed.
BY FEDERAL ELECTRONIC FILING: I caused such document(s) to be
electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send
notification of such filing and copies of the document(s) to the parties.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on November 9, 2011, at Sacramento, California.
26
/s/ Jenny O’Shaughnessy
Jenny O’Shaughnessy
27
28
29
3
30
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
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?