N.Y. v. San Ramon Valley Unified School District et al

Filing 172

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. All causes of action against defendant Willford are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 16, 2020. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2020)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

2
3
4

N.Y., through his guardians David
and Leilanie Yu,

5

Plaintiff,

6
vs.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT; RICK SCHMITT
in
his personal and official capacities
as Superintendent of the San
Ramon Valley Unified School
District; DR. JASON REIMANN, in his
personal and official capacities as
Director of Education Services of
the San Ramon Valley Unified
School District; RUTH STEELE, in her
personal and official capacities as
Principal of San Ramon Valley High
School; JASON KROLIKOWSKI, in his
personal and official capacities as
Principal of San Ramon Valley High
School; JAMIE KEITH in her personal
and official capacities as Assistant
Principal of San Ramon Valley High
School; DEARBORN RAMOS in her
personal and official capacities as
Assistant Principal of San Ramon
Valley High School; BERNIE PHELAN
in his personal and official
capacities as Assistant Principal of
San Ramon Valley High School;
JANET WILLFORD, in her personal
and official capacities as
Leadership Teacher of San Ramon
Valley High School; and KERRI
CHRISTMAN GILBERT in her personal
and official capacities as Resident Substitute
Teacher of San Ramon Valley High School,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

-1[PROPOSED] AGREED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

EXHIBIT - A

Case No.: 3:17-CV-03906-MMC
[PROPOSED] AGREED ORDER OF
DISMISSAL

1
2
[PROPOSED] AGREED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

3
4

1.

Pursuant to the Parties’ February 20, 2020 settlement agreement and Joint

5

Motion for Stipulated Dismissal, all causes of action against Defendant Willford set forth in

6

the Fifth Amended Complaint are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

7

2.

This Court shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcement of the

8
9
10
11

settlement agreement. declines to retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, given
the numerous separate obligations set forth in the five numbered paragraphs
constituting the "Non-Monetary Terms" section and the lack of a termination date for
the vast majority of those obligations.
April 16, 2020
Dated: ___________

12

__________________
______
__________________
_ _
_
_
Maxine
Maxine M. Chesney
a ne
n
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG
JUDGE
UNITED
IT
T

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

-2[PROPOSED] AGREED ORDER OF DISMISSAL