Lopez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc

Filing 84

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting 83 Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice.(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2012)

Case5:11-cv-01632-LHK Document83 Filed05/07/12 Page1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

RICHARD J. VAZNAUGH (SBN: 173249)
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD J. VAZNAUGH
1388 Sutter St., Ste 1000
San Francisco, CA 94109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415-673-5606
[e-mail]
DAVID M. DERUBERTIS (SBN: 208709)
THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM, PLC
4219 Coldwater Canyon Ave.
Studio City, CA 91604
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ROSALIND LOPEZ
MICHAEL D. BRUNO (SBN: 166805)
MICHAEL A. LAURENSON (SBN: 190023)
GORDON & REES LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
WAL-MART STORES, INC.

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

SAN JOSE DIVISION

20

ROSALIND LOPEZ,

21
22
23
24
25

CASE NO. CV11-01632 LHK
Plaintiff,

SECOND STIPULATED REQUEST FOR
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE; PROPOSED
ORDER

vs.
WAL-MART STORES, INC. and DOES 1-20,
inclusive.

Judge: The Hon. Lucy H. Koh
Date of Removal: April 4, 2011
Trial Date: May 21, 2012

Defendant.

26
27
28
1
SECOND STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL; PROPOSED
ORDER

Case No. CV11-01632 LHK

Case5:11-cv-01632-LHK Document83 Filed05/07/12 Page2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
The Parties have heard the Court and understand the Court does not wish to delay the
dismissal. As such, the Parties hereby request a dismissal with prejudice, and respectfully ask the
Court to retain jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of resolving any disputes that may arise
and be raised with the Court within the next 60 days in connection with the settlement agreement, its
terms or the enforcement thereof.
The Parties have executed a formal written settlement agreement resolving this matter.

9

However, if the matter is unconditionally dismissed with prejudice and there is an (unlikely) breach

10

of the payment terms of the settlement agreement, the entire prejudice of dismissal would fall on Ms.

11

Lopez, who would have no case and a broken settlement agreement requiring a new lawsuit to

12

enforce it.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

The Court’s retaining jurisdiction over the parties to monitor and enforce the settlement in the
event of a future dispute protects the Plaintiff from a potential risk of the settlement falling apart.
Such oversight has been found to be appropriate in other matters to address similar concerns. See
e.g. Flanagan v. Arnaiz (9th Cir., 1998) 143 F.3d 540, 545.
In addition, the Parties Stipulate that based on the settlement, the current trial date and all pretrial deadlines are moot and should be vacated.

20
21

So stipulated:

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12680164.1
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE,
CONDITIONAL ON FUTURE ACTS; PROPOSED ORDER

2
Case No. CV11-01632 LHK

Case5:11-cv-01632-LHK Document83 Filed05/07/12 Page3 of 3

1
2

DATED: May 7, 2012

GORDON & REES
By: /s/ Michael Bruno
Michael D. Bruno
Attorneys for Defendant
WAL-MART STORES, INC.

3
4
5
6

DATED: May 7, 2012
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD J. VAZNAUGH
THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM

7

By: /s/ Richard J. Vaznaugh
RICHARD J. VAZNAUGH
Attorney for Plaintiff

8
9
10

*****

11

[PROPOSED] ORDER

12
13

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 7, 2012
___________________________

_______________________________________
HON. LUCY H. KOH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12680164.1
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE,
CONDITIONAL ON FUTURE ACTS; PROPOSED ORDER

3
Case No. CV11-01632 LHK