Ruiz et al v. Vargas

Filing 82

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS NOE VARGAS AND JAVIER VARGAS WITH PREJUDICE re 81 Stipulation, filed by Jose Felipe Ruiz, Ramiro Hernandez Parra, Marcelino Hernandez, Alejandro Aguilar, Carlos Aguilar Rivas. Signed by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull on July 12, 2010. (pvtlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2010)

Ruiz et al v. Vargas

Doc. 82

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

Tomas E. Margain, Bar No. 193555 DAL BON & MARGAIN
28 North 1st Street, Suite 210 San Jose, CA 95113 Tel [phone] Fax [phone]

[e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Douglas M. Larsen, Bar No. 142852 Travis R. Stokes, Bar No. 225122 FISHMAN, LARSEN, GOLDRING & ZEITLER 7112 North Fresno Street, Suite 450 Fresno, CA 93720 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants Noe Vargas and Javier Vargas UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case No.: 08-CV-01804PVT JOSE FELIPE RUIZ; CARLOS AGUILAR RIVAS; MARCELINO HERNANDEZ; ALEJANDRO AGUILAR; RAMIRO XXXXXXXXXXXXXX HERNANDEZ PARRA; SALOMON GOMEZ; STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] MAURO HERNANDEZ; HERIBERTO ORDER TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS NOE PAMAZ-LUCAS; ANTONIO HERNANDEZ; VARGAS AND JAVIER VARGAS WITH ANTONIO GONZALES; and ALEJANDRO PREJUDICE GONZALES, Plaintiffs, vs. ARMANDO VARGAS; JAVIER VARGAS; NOE VARGAS; EDITH R. SAUNO; Defendants. And Related Cross-Action

-1Ruiz, et al. v. Vargas

08-CV-01804 PVT

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Plaintiffs JOSE FELIPE RUIZ, CARLOS AGUILAR RIVAS, MARCELINO HERNANDEZ, ALEJANDRO AGUILAR, RAMIRO HERNANDEZ PARRA, SALOMON GOMEZ, MAURO HERNANDEZ, HERIBERTO PAMAZ-LUCAS, ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, ANTONIO GONZALES, and ALEJANDRO GONZALES and Defendants JAVIER VARGAS and NOE VARGAS through Counsel hereby stipulate as follows: 1. The above-mentioned parties settled their disputes at a Mandatory Settlement

Conference on June 11, 2010 before the Honorable Howard Lloyd. The Plaintiffs and Defendants Noe Vargas, Javier Vargas and Edith Sauno were present at this Mandatory Settlement Conference. However, Defendant Armando Vargas was not present and did not participate in the Mandatory Settlement Conference in light of his filing for bankruptcy protection and the subsequent statutory stay. 2. At the Mandatory Settlement Conference, the Plaintiffs and Defendants Noe

Vargas and Javier Vargas reached a settlement among themselves, and that settlement includes Plaintiffs dismissing their Second Amended Complaint with prejudice against Defendants Noe Vargas and Javier Vargas.

14 15 16 17 18

3..

Consequently, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the above-named

parties only that the claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiffs in their Second Amended Complaint against Defendants JAVIER VARGAS and NOE VARGAS in the above-captioned action be and hereby are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2). FOR PLAINTIFFS DAL BON & MARGAIN By: //s// Tomas E. Margain Tomas E. Margain FISHMAN, LARSEN, GOLDRING & ZEITLER By: //s// Travis R. Stokes Travis R. Stokes

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DATED: DATED: 7/6/2010

FOR DEFENDANTS JAVIER VARGAS; NOE VARGAS 7/6/2010

-2Ruiz, et al. v. Vargas

08-CV-01804 PVT

1 ORDER 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 against Defendants Javier Vargas and Noe Vargas. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
July 12, 2010 DATED: _________________________

Pursuant to the above-Stipulation between the above-named parties and for good cause shown, all claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiffs against Defendants JAVIER VARGAS and NOE VARGAS are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED that the Second Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice

___________________________________ Hon. Patricia V. Trumbull UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3Ruiz, et al. v. Vargas

08-CV-01804 PVT