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)
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?