Dorger et al v. City of Napa et al

Filing 68

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DISMISS CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND CERTAIN CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE re 66 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/08/2013. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Gregory M. Fox, State Bar No. 070876 BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT The Waterfront Building 2749 Hyde Street San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 353-0999 Facsimile: (415) 353-0990 Michael W. Barrett, City Attorney, State Bar No. 155968 David C. Jones, Deputy City Attorney, State Bar No. 129881 NAPA CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE CITY OF NAPA P.O. Box 660 955 School Street Napa, CA 94559 Telephone: (707) 257-9516 Facsimile: (707) 257-9274 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF NAPA and NAPA POLICE OFFICERS BRAD BAKER, NICK DALESSI and AMY HUNTER 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 SAMANDA DORGER AND GABRIELLE POCCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF RICHARD POCCIA, Plaintiffs, Case No. CV12-0440 WHO STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DISMISS CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND CERTAIN CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE v. CITY OF NAPA; NAPA POLICE OFFICER BRAD BAKER; NAPA POLICE OFFICER NICK DALESSI; NAPA POLICE SERGEANT AMY HUNTER, Defendants. 23 24 25 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties hereto, through their respective undersigned attorneys of record, as follows: 26 Plaintiffs, acting by and through their counsel of record, dismiss with prejudice defendant City of 27 Napa Police Officer Brad Baker in his individual capacity and his capacity as a Napa Police Officer 28 employed by the City of Napa from the entire action as set forth more fully in the Third Amended 1 STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND CERTAIN CLAIMS USDC, Northern Dist. Case No. 3:12-cv-00440 WHO 1 Complaint (TAC). The parties agree to waive their respective fees and costs relative to the prosecution 2 and defense of defendant Brad Baker. 3 Plaintiffs, acting by and through their counsel of record, dismiss with prejudice the entire Fourth 4 Claim of Relief (Monell Liability) in the TAC naming the defendant City of Napa and all Does 1 through 5 10 named therein and the Monell claims in all related paragraphs in the complaint including paragraphs, 6 28, 29, and 30. The parties agree to waive their respective fees and costs relative to the prosecution and 7 defense of the City of Napa from the allegations of the Fourth Claim For Relief and paragraphs specified 8 herein. 9 Plaintiffs, acting by and through their counsel of record, dismiss with prejudice the Fifth Claim 10 for Relief in the TAC seeking direct and personal liability against the City of Napa including all 11 references to the City in paragraphs 65, 66, 67, 68. The City of Napa remains as a defendant in the Fifth 12 Claim for Relief as employer of defendants Dalessi and Hunter for the alleged tortious acts of its 13 employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior as set forth in the Fifth Claim for Relief and which 14 is set forth more fully in paragraph 71. The parties agree to waive their respective fees and costs relative 15 to the prosecution and defense of the City of Napa from the allegations of the Fifth Claim For Relief as 16 specified herein. 17 Plaintiffs acting by and through their counsel of record dismiss with prejudice the Sixth Claim for 18 Relief in the TAC seeking direct and personal liability against the City of Napa including paragraphs 75 19 and 76. The City of Napa remains as a defendant in the Sixth Claim for Relief as employer of defendants 20 Dalessi and Hunter for the alleged tortious acts of its employees under the doctrine of respondeat 21 superior as set forth in the Sixth Claim for Relief as set forth more fully in paragraph 71 which in 22 incorporated therein as though more fully set forth in the Sixth Claim for Relief. The parties agree to 23 waive their respective fees and costs relative to the prosecution and defense of the City of Napa from the 24 allegations of the Sixth Claim For Relief as specified herein. 25 Plaintiffs acting by and through their counsel of record dismiss with prejudice all claims for loss 26 of economic support, past, present and future in the TAC that discuss, refer or relate to the alleged 27 wrongful death of Richard Poccia. The parties agree to waive their respective fees and costs relative to 28 the prosecution and defense of the City of Napa from the plaintiffs claims for damages of loss of 2 STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND CERTAIN CLAIMS USDC, Northern Dist. Case No. 3:12-cv-00440 WHO 1 2 3 4 5 6 economic support, past, present and future in the TAC. Plaintiffs acting by and through their counsel of record dismiss with prejudice all DOE defendants as set forth more fully in paragraph 9 and throughout the TAC. So Stipulated. Dated: August 6, 2013 BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT 7 By: 8 9 10 11 /s/ Gregory M. Fox Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF NAPA and NAPA POLICE OFFICERS BRAD BAKER, NICK DALESSI AND AMY HUNTER 12 13 14 Dated: August 6, 20136 WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER 15 By: 16 17 /s/ KHALDOUN A. BAGHDADI Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ATTORNEY ATTESTATION I hereby attest that I have met and conferred with plaintiffs’ counsel who has approved this stipulation as for form and content and authorized me to file this pleading with his signatures indicated by a conformed signature (“/s/”) within this E-filed document. Dated: August 6, 2013 /s/ Gregory M. Fox 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND CERTAIN CLAIMS USDC, Northern Dist. Case No. 3:12-cv-00440 WHO 1 ORDER 2 Having considered the stipulated request of the parties, the Court orders as follows: 3 The Stipulation of the Parties regarding dismissal of certain defendants and claims IT IS SO 4 ORDERED and the defendants and claims specified herein in the parties stipulation are dismissed with 5 prejudice, each side to bear their own fees and costs as to these parties and claims. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 DATED: August 7, 2013 ___________________________________ THE HONORABLE WILLIAM ORRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND CERTAIN CLAIMS USDC, Northern Dist. Case No. 3:12-cv-00440 WHO

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?