Estate of Robert Renzel, Deceased et al v. Ventura et al
Filing
325
ORDER GRANTING 324 Request for Dismissal Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(a) (2). ***Civil Case Terminated.***Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 8/23/2019. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2019)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Bret A. Stone
SBN 190161 BStone@PaladinLaw.com
SBN 288508 KTracy@PaladinLaw.com
Kirk M. Tracy
PALADIN LAW GROUP® LLP
1176 Boulevard Way
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
Telephone:
(925) 947-5700
Facsimile:
(925) 935-8488
Counsel for Estate of Robert Renzel, Deceased, by and through his
successors in interest, Susan Carter and Ann Renzel Sebastian;
Robert E. Renzel Trust, by and through its trustees, Susan Carter
and Ann Renzel Sebastian; Susan Carter; Ann Renzel Sebastian;
and Bascom Avenue Development LLC
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
OAKLAND DIVISION
12
13
ESTATE OF ROBERT RENZEL,
DECEASED et al.,
14
Plaintiffs,
15
v.
16
17
18
19
20
Case No. 4:15-cv-1648-HSG
NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. PROC. 41(a)(2)
OF RENZEL AND TORRES AND
ORDER
ESTATE OF LUPE VENTURA,
DECEASED, et al.,
Defendants.
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND
CROSSCLAIM.
21
22
23
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), Plaintiffs and
24
Counter-Defendants Estate of Robert Renzel, Deceased, by and through his successors in interest,
25
Susan Carter and Ann Renzel Sebastian; Robert E. Renzel Trust, by and through its trustees, Susan
26
Carter and Ann Renzel Sebastian; Susan Carter; Ann Renzel Sebastian; and Bascom Avenue
27
Development LLC, a California limited liability company (collectively, “Renzel”), and Defendants,
28
Counter-Claimants, and Cross-Claimants Carmen Torres and Alfredo Torres (collectively,
RENZEL AND TORRES NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
1
“Torres”) hereby request an order that dismisses all claims between Renzel and Torres in this
2
action.
3
On July 17, 2019, the Court granted Renzel and Torres’ joint application for determination
4
of good faith settlement and establishment of the Bascom Remediation Trust. ECF No. 321. All
5
required settlement payments have been received by Renzel. Pursuant to the terms of the underlying
6
settlement agreement, Renzel and Torres submit this request for dismissal. Renzel and Torres are
7
separately submitting notices of voluntary dismissal or requests for dismissal of all other remaining
8
parties.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Accordingly, Renzel and Torres agree to and request an order:
1. Dismissing each of Renzel’s claims against Torres from its Second Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 67), with prejudice;
2. Dismissing each of Torres’s counterclaims against Renzel from its First Amended
Counterclaims (ECF No. 44), with prejudice;
3. Providing that Renzel and Torres shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: August 23, 2019
17
/s/ Bret A. Stone
18
19
Counsel for Renzel
DATED: August 23, 2019
20
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
/s/ Glenn A. Friedman
21
Counsel for Counter Defendants Ann Renzel
Sebastian, Susan Carter and the Estate of Robert
Renzel
22
23
24
PALADIN LAW GROUP® LLP
DATED: August 23, 2019
CAUFIELD & JAMES LLP
25
/s/ Jeffery L. Caufield
26
Counsel for Alfredo and Carmen Torres
27
28
-2Case No. 4:15-cv-1648-HSG
RENZEL AND TORRES NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ORDER
Good cause appearing, the Court orders as follows:
1. Each of Renzel’s claims against Torres from its Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 67)
are hereby dismissed with prejudice;
2. Each of Torres’s counterclaims against Renzel from its First Amended Counterclaims (ECF
No. 44) are hereby dismissed with prejudice;
3. Renzel and Torres shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs.
8
9
Dated: 8/23/2019
United
United States District Judge
t
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3Case No. 4:15-cv-1648-HSG
RENZEL AND TORRES NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
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?