Dominiquez v. Port of Oakland et al
Filing
41
STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FRCP 41(a)(1). Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/23/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Aaron L. Agenbroad (State Bar No. 242613)
Allison E. Crow (State Bar No. 279078)
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
+1.415.626.3939
Facsimile:
+1.415.875.5700
Email: alagenbroad@JonesDay.com
Email: acrow@JonesDay.com
Manuel A. Juarez (SBN 200706)
LAW OFFICES OF MANUEL A.
JUAREZ
2413 Cedar St., Ste. 200
Berkeley, CA 94709
Tel: 510.841.6164
Fax: 510.841.6164
Email: BayLaw1@yahoo.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
JAIMEN JOAQUIN
DOMINIQUEZ
Danny Wan (State Bar. No. 168323)
Daniel Connolly (State Bar No. 136005)
PORT OF OAKLAND
530 Water Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 627-1342
Facsimile: (510) 444-2093
Email: dwan@portoakland.com
Email: dconnolly@portoakland.com
Attorneys for Defendants
PORT OF OAKLAND, WILLIAM MORRISON;
KENNETH TAYLOR; OMAR BENJAMIN;
WILLIAM EDWARD; KIMBERLY A. LINDERME;
CHERYL PERRY LEAGUE; GINA CARRADINE;
MICHAEL MITCHELL; TED MANKOWSKI; JOE
ECHELBERRY (named as JOEL EICHENBERRY);
GARY RUTLAND; DENYCE HOLSEY AND
FRANKIE JOHNSON
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
Jaimen Joaquin Dominiquez,
Plaintiff,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
v.
Port of Oakland, a Department of the City of
Oakland, a Municipal Corporation; Service
Employees International Union Local 1021, a
labor union; William Morrison aka Bill
Morrison, Kenneth Taylor, Omar Benjamin,
William Edward aka Bill Edwards, Kimberly
A. Linderme, Cheryl Perry League, Gina
Carradine, Millie Cleveland, Michael
Mitchell, Ted Mankowski, Joel Eichenberry,
Gary Rutland, Denyce Holsey, Frankie
Johnson and Does 1-100, inclusive,
Case No. CV-13-03756-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FRCP
41(a)(1)
Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg
Defendants
28
Case No. CV-13-03756-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
1
TO THE COURT CLERK, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL:
2
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), the parties in the above-captioned
3
action, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate that this action be and hereby is
4
dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.
5
This Stipulation is made pursuant to the parties’ Confidential Severance Agreement and
6
Release of All Claims. The parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs of suit incurred
7
herein.
8
9
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: June 18, 2014
LAW OFFICES OF MANUEL A. JUAREZ
10
By: /s/ Manuel A. Juarez (as authorized on
June 17, 2014)
Manuel A. Juarez
11
12
Attorney for Plaintiff
JAIMEN JOAQUIN DOMINIQUEZ
13
14
Dated: June 18, 2014
PORT OF OAKLAND
Danny Wan
Daniel Connolly
15
16
17
JONES DAY
18
By:
19
/s/ Aaron L. Agenbroad
Aaron L. Agenbroad
Attorneys for Defendants
PORT OF OAKLAND; WILLIAM
MORRISON; KENNETH TAYLOR; OMAR
BENJAMIN; WILLIAM EDWARD;
KIMBERLY A. LINDERME; CHERYL
PERRY LEAGUE; GINA CARRADINE;
MICHAEL MITCHELL; TED
MANKOWSKI; JOE ECHELBERRY (aka
JOEL EICHENBERRY); GARY RUTLAND;
DENYCE HOLSEY AND FRANKIE
JOHNSON
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. CV-13-03756-RS
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
1
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, and with the stipulation and consent of all
3
parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-entitled action is DISMISSED WITH
4
PREJUDICE, each party to bear its own fees and costs.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6/23
Dated: __________________, 2014
7
8
By:_______________________________________
The Honorable Richard Seeborg
United States District Court Judge for the
Northern District of California
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. CV-13-03756-RS
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
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?