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)

Download PDF
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?