Heatherly et al v. Happy Donuts et al
Filing
10
STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL re 8 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 1/25/2012. (kns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH (State Bar #074414)
THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
4328 Redwood Hwy, Suite 300
San Rafael, CA 94903
Telephone:
415/674-8600
Facsimile:
415/674-9900
Attorneys for Plaintiff DAREN HEATHERLY;
and IRMA RAMIREZ
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
)
HAPPY DONUTS; WAYNE WOO;
)
LILLIAN WOO; WALDEN WOO and
)
CATHERINE L. GLAHN, Trustees of
)
THE WALDEN WOO and CATHERINE )
L. GLAHN 2003 REVOCABLE TRUST )
)
created September11, 2003; WESLEY
)
WOO, as Trustee of THE WESLEY WOO )
)
2003 REVOCABLE TRUST created
December 31, 2003; WAYNE WOO and )
)
ANGELA WOO, as Trustees of THE
)
)
WAYNE WOO and ANGELA WOO
REVOCABLE TRUST; LILLIAN WOO )
)
TRUSTEE of THE CHORLEY-WOO
)
TRUST dated December 20, 2006; and
)
LILLY YAM and FATH YIN individuals )
)
dba HAPPY DONUTS,
)
)
Defendants.
___________________________________
DAREN HEATHERLY and IRMA
RAMIREZ, each an individual
CASE NO.. CV-11-4129-EDL
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
27
28
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
CASE NO.. CV-11-4129-EDL
The parties, by and through their respective counsel, stipulate to dismissal of this action
1
2
in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(1). Outside of the terms of the
3
Settlement Agreement and General Release (“Agreement”) herein, each party is to bear its own
4
costs and attorneys’ fees. The parties further consent to and request that the Court retain
5
jurisdiction over enforcement of the Agreement. See Kokonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511
6
U.S. 375 (1994) (empowering the district courts to retain jurisdiction over enforcement of
7
settlement agreements).
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between parties to this action through
8
9
their designated counsel that the above-captioned action be and hereby is dismissed with
10
prejudice
11
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure section 41(a)(1).
This stipulation may be executed in counterparts, all of which together shall constitute
12
13
one original document.
14
15
Dated: January 6, 2012
THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
16
By: /s/ Thomas E. Frankovich
Thomas E. Frankovich
Attorney for DAREN HEATHERLY and IRMA
RAMIREZ, each an individual
17
18
19
SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
20
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
CASE NO.. CV-11-4129-EDL
-2-
1
Dated: January 6, 2011
2
RAGUNATH K. DINDIAL,
Attorney at Law
3
By: /s/ Ragunath K. Dindial
Ragunath K. Dindial
Attorney for Defendants WAYNE WOO; LILLIAN
WOO; WALDEN WOO and CATHERINE L.
GLAHN, Trustees of THE WALDEN WOO and
CATHERINE L. GLAHN 2003 REVOCABLE
TRUST created September11, 2003; WESLEY
WOO, as Trustee of THE WESLEY WOO 2003
REVOCABLE TRUST created December 31, 2003;
WAYNE WOO and ANGELA WOO, as Trustees
of THE WAYNE WOO and ANGELA WOO
REVOCABLE TRUST; LILLIAN WOO
TRUSTEE of THE CHORLEY-WOO TRUST
dated December 20, 2006; and LILLY YAM and
FATH YIN individuals dba HAPPY DONUTS
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ORDER
17
18
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to
19
Fed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(1). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction for
20
the purpose of enforcing the parties’ Settlement Agreement and General Release should such
S
RT
ER
H
27
NO
26
Honorable Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte
orte
UNITED STATE abeth D. LapJUDGE
liz DISTRICT
Judge E
FO
25
D
RDERE
OO
IT IS S
LI
24
January 25
Dated: _____________, 2012
UNIT
ED
23
RT
U
O
22
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
R NIA
enforcement be necessary
28
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
A
21
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
CASE NO.. CV-11-4129-EDL
-3-
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?