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)

Download PDF
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?