Mausisa v. The Hertz Corporation

Filing 33

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 32 of Dismissal filed by The Hertz Corporation. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/20/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

ROBERT A. DOLINKO (State Bar No. 076256)
[e-mail]
ELLEN M. PAPADAKIS (State Bar No. 186621)
[e-mail]
MATTHEW J. FRANKEL (State Bar No. 256633)
[e-mail]
NIXON PEABODY LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 18th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-3600
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
THE HERTZ CORPORATION

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

SANDRA L. RIBERA (State Bar No. 236769)
[e-mail]
JOSHUA DE LARIOS-HEIMAN (State Bar No. 256737)
[e-mail]
RIBERA LAW FIRM
A Professional Corporation
807 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

16
17

Attorneys for Plaintiff
RICHARD MAUSISA

18
19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21
22

25
26
27

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE ; ORDER

Plaintiff,

23
24

Case No. 3:12-cv-01432-EMC

RICHARD MAUSISA, individually,

vs.

[Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)]

THE HERTZ CORPORATION, and DOES 1
through 20,
Defendants.

28
-1STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

1

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff RICHARD

2

MAUSISA and Defendant THE HERTZ CORPORATION, by and through their respective counsel,

3

hereby stipulate to dismissal of this action, with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’

4

fees and costs of litigation.

5
6

Respectfully submitted,
DATED:

November 15, 2012

RIBERA LAW FIRM, APC

7
By: /s/ Joshua de Larios-Heiman

8

Attorneys for Plaintiff
RICHARD MAUSISA

9
10
11

DATED:

November 20, 2012

NIXON PEABODY LLP

12

By: /s/ Matthew J. Frankel

13

Attorneys for Defendant
THE HERTZ CORPORATION

14
15

de Larios-Heiman.
/s/ Matthew J. Frankel

18

H

25
26

dward
Judge E

n

M. Che

________________
Edward M. Chen
ER
United States District
C
N
F
Judge
D IS T IC T O
R

RT

24

NO

23

R NIA

22

FO

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
All hearings are
D
RDERE
vacated.
S SO O
IT I

UNIT
ED

20

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

19

LI

17

I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from Joshua

A

16

LOCAL RULE 5.1(i)(3) ATTESTATION

27
28
2
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE; CASE NO. 3:12-CV-01432-EMC