Johnson v. The Procter & Gamble Co.

Filing 17

STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 6/16/16. (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2016)

1 Daniel C. Girard (State Bar No. 114826)
[e-mail]
2 Jordan Elias (State Bar No. 228731)
[e-mail]
3
Linh G. Vuong (State Bar No. 286837)
[e-mail]
4
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
5 601 California Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, California 94108
6 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
7
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
GREGORY JOHNSON
9
Eric J. Knapp, SBN 214352
[e-mail]
10
Robert J. Nolan, SBN 235738
[e-mail]
11
Aengus H. Carr, SBN 240953
[e-mail]
12
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
13 Attorneys at Law
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
14 San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone:
415.989.5900
415.989.0932
15 Facsimile:
16 Attorneys for Defendant
The Procter & Gamble Co.
17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

20
21 GREGORY JOHNSON, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated individuals,
22
Plaintiff,
23
v.
24
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO.,
25
Defendant.
26

Case No. 3:16-cv-02302
JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO
FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(1)(A)(ii)
Judge:

Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton

Complaint filed: April 27, 2016

27
28
SQUIRE PATTON
BOGGS (US) LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

CBM-PRODUCTS\SF682391-1

Case No. 3:16-cv-02302
JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(1)(A)(ii)

1

Plaintiff Gregory Johnson (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant The Procter & Gamble Co.

2 (“Defendant”) (together, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate
3 and agree pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to the dismissal of Plaintiff’s
4 claims in this action without prejudice.
5

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and AGREED:

6

1) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant in this action shall be dismissed without prejudice;

7

2) The Parties agree this dismissal does not prejudice Plaintiff’s right to refile in the United

8 States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio;
9

3) The Parties further agree that this dismissal does not waive Defendant’s right to seek

10 intra-district reassignment in that jurisdiction should Plaintiff refile his complaint there; and
11

3) Each party shall bear its own costs.

12

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

13 Dated: June 15, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

14
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
15

/s/ Daniel C. Girard

By
16

DANIEL C. GIRARD
Attorneys for Plaintiff
GREGORY JOHNSON

17
18
19 Dated: June 15, 2016

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP

20

By

21

ERIC J. KNAPP
Attorneys for Defendant
THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO.

22

/s/ Eric J. Knapp

UNIT
ED

CBM-PRODUCTS\SF682391-1

ER

Hamilton

FO

hyllis J.

LI

Judge P

A

H

SAN FRANCISCO

RT

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

NO

28

R NIA

_______________________________________
ERED
O ORD
IT IS S
United States District Judge

27

SQUIRE PATTON
BOGGS (US) LLP

T

RT
U
O

S

23 Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer of the document attests that concurrence in the filing of
the document has been obtained from each of the other Signatories.
24
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:
25
June 16, 2016
ISTRIC
ES D
TC
26 Dated: ____________________
AT

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

Case No. 3:16-cv-02302
JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(1)(A)(ii)

-2-