Hagler v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 25

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 24 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE filed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on May 2, 2018. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2018)

Download PDF
14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION 17 FRANK HAGLER, Plaintiff, 18 19 Case No. 3:17-cv-05770-JST STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED) ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE vs. 20 WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; DAWN FAILS, AND DOES 21 1-25, [San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-17-561141] Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LAW OFFICES STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP 1077331/SF Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, Plaintiff Frank Hagler and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, 1 2 National Association jointly stipulate that the Complaint and all of Plaintiffs claims in this action 3 be dismissed with prejudice, and each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. 4 5 Dated: May 1, 2018 ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE MALLORY & NATSIS LLP 6 7 By: /s/ Alexander Nestor ---------------BALDWIN J. LEE ALEXANDER NESTOR Attorneys for Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 8 9 10 11 12 Dated: L.//rzp-& HOYER & HICKS 13 14 i½k R By: ~ ~ 15 SEAN D. MCHENRY Attorneys for Plaintiff FRANK HAGLER 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LAW OFFICES STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP 1077331/SF -1- 1 ORDER 2 PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 Dated: May 2, 2018 Hon. John S. Tigar Judge, United States District Court 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LAW OFFICES STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED) ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP 1077331/SF -2-

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?