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)

Download PDF
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?