Christiansen et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al
Filing
25
ORDER on 23 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 17 Amended Complaint Re: Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice filed by Olga Christiansen, NDEX West L.L.C., Victor Christiansen, Terminating 18 MOTION to Dismiss Plainti ffs' First Amended Complaint filed by NDEX West L.L.C.., NDEX West L.L.C. terminated., Attorney Masumi Jagdish Patel and Edward A. Treder terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 7/10/2012. (hlkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2012)
1
2
3
Michael Yesk (SB#130056)
70 Doray Drive, Suite 16
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
510-909-9700
yesklaw@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.; NDEX )
)
WEST
)
L.L.C.; AND DOES 1-100,
)
)
INCLUSIVE,
)
)
Defendants
VICTOR CHRISTIANSEN AND
OLGA
CHRISTIANSEN,
Case No.: 4:12-cv-02526-DMR
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL
WITH PREJUDICE
Hon. Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu
15
16
Whereas, Plaintiffs Victor Christiansen and Olga Christiansen, on the one
17
hand, and Defendant NDeX West, LLC, on the other hand, stipulated through their
18
respective attorneys of record, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule
19
41(a), that all claims and demands asserted by Plaintiffs in this action shall be
20
dismissed with prejudice against Defendant NDeX West, LLC only, and each party
21
to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs; and
22
23
24
25
Whereas, it appears to the Court that the terms of the stipulation appear
proper, and upon good cause showing,
It is hereby ordered that all claims and demands asserted by Plaintiff against
Defendant NDeX West, LLC in this action shall be and hereby are dismissed with
26
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
4:12-cv-02526-DMR
-1-
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the August 9, 2012 hearing on the motion
to dismiss filed by NDeX is vacated and the motion is terminated.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ER
H
11
RT
10
Honorable Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu
. Ryu
onna M
Judge D
NO
9
DATED: July 10, 2012
FO
8
D
RDERE
S SO O IED
IT I
DIF
________________________________________
AS MO
R NIA
7
UNIT
ED
6
RT
U
O
S
5
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
LI
2
prejudice, each party to bear their owns costs and attorneys’ fees.
A
1
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
4:12-cv-02526-DMR
-2-
1
2
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
4
5
6
7
I, the undersigned, declare that I am over the age of 18 and am not a party to
this action. I am employed in the City of Diamond Bar, California. My business
address is Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Treder & Weiss, LLP, 20955 Pathfinder Road,
Suite 300, Diamond Bar, California 91765.
8
9
10
11
On the date below, I served the following document entitled:
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
on all interested parties in said case addressed as follows:
Served Electronically Via The Court’s CM/ECF System:
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Counsel for Defendant Wells Fargo
Bank
Michael Yesk, Esq.
Yesk Law
4 Fairway Place
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Christopher A. Carr, Esq.
Dong-Youl Dennis La, Esq.
Melissa M. Coyle, Esq.
Anglin Flewelling Rasmussen
Campbell & Trytten LLP
199 S Los Robles Avenue, Ste. 600
Pasadena, CA 91101-2459
19
20
21
22
23
24
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct. I declare that I am a member of the
Bar of this Court. This declaration is executed in Diamond Bar, California, on
June 29, 2012.
25
26
JC Lewis, Jr.
_____
_______/s/_ JC Lewis, Jr. _____
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
4:12-cv-02526-DMR
-3-
1
(Type or Print Name)
(Signature of Declarant)
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
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
4:12-cv-02526-DMR
-4-
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?