Tennison v. City & County of San Francisco et al

Filing 607

ORDER re (605 in 4:04-cv-00574-CW) granting STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER FRCP 41(a)(2). Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 9/25/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOHN HOUSTON SCOTT SBN 72578 THE SCOTT LAW FIRM 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 715 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 561-9601 Facsimile: (415) 561-9609 RANDOLPH DAAR SBN 88195 506 Broadway St. San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 986-5591 Fax: (415) 421-1331 Attorneys for Plaintiff ANTOINE GOFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTOINE GOFF, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT; PRENTICE EARL SANDERS; and NAPOLEON HENDRIX, Defendants. Case No. C 04-00574 CW Conslidated w/ C 04-01643 CW STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER FRCP 41(a)(2) 1 STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER FRCP 41(a)(2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: September 23, 2009 Dated: September 23, 2009 Dated: September 23, 2009 STIPULATION The undersigned parties, by and through their respective counsel, do hereby stipulate: WHEREAS, the parties are engaged in litigation in this Court, Case No. Case No. C 0401643 CW (the "Action"); WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to resolve the Action pursuant to Settlement Agreements and Mutual Releases (the "Agreements"); and WHEREAS, said Agreements called for the entry of a Consent Judgment and Order of Dismissal upon the terms set forth in the Agreement; ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND JOINTLY REQUESTED that the Court enter the attached Consent Judgment and Order of Dismissal. THE SCOTT LAW FIRM By: /s/ John Houston Scott JOHN HOUSTON SCOTT Attorneys for Plaintiff ANTOINE GOFF OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY By: /s/ Joanne Hoeper JOANNE HOEPER Attorneys for Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO MOSCONE, EMBLIDGE & QUADRA, LLP By: /s/ James A. Quadra JAMES A. QUADRA Attorneys for Defendants PRENTICE EARL SANDERS and NAPOLEON HENDRIX 2 STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER FRCP 41(a)(2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CONSENT JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL The Court enters this Consent Judgment and Order of Dismissal, based on the stipulation of the parties, plaintiff Antoine Goff ("Goff"), on the one hand, and defendants City and County of San Francisco, and Prentice Earl Sanders and Napoleon Hendrix (collectively "Defendants"), on the other hand, in light of the following: WHEREAS, Goff and Defendants are engaged in litigation in this Court, Case No. C 0401643 CW (the "Action"); WHEREAS, Goff and Defendants have agreed resolve the Action pursuant to Settlement Agreements and Mutual Releases (the "Agreements"); and WHEREAS, said Agreements called for the entry of this Consent Judgment and Order of Dismissal upon the terms set forth in the Agreement; ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Goff's claims, as set forth in his Amended Complaint filed September 3, 2009, are dismissed with prejudice; 2. The dismissal set forth in paragraph 1 of this Judgment is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) and is conditioned on the parties' compliance with the terms of the Agreement, which terms are incorporated herein and are made part of this Judgment; 3. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this Judgment and the incorporated Agreement; and 4. fees to date. IT IS SO ORDERED. Other than as provided in the Agreements, each party is to bear its own costs and Dated: September __25_, 2009 _________________________________________ THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKIN United States District Judge 3 STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER FRCP 41(a)(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?