Rachelle Ridola v. Arena Hotel Investments, Inc. et al

Filing 32

STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 2/27/2017. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2017)

Download PDF
1 3 4 LAW OFFICE OF IRENE KARBELASHVILI Irene Karbelashvili, State Bar Number 232223 Irakli Karbelashvili, State Bar Number 302971 12 South First Street, Suite 413 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 295-0137 Fax: (408) 295-0142 ANDERIES & GOMES LLP Shane K. Anderies (SBN 215415) Allan J. Gomes (SBN 225810) 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 888 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 217-8802 Facsimile: (415) 217-8803 Attorneys for RACHELLE RIDOLA, Plaintiff 2 Attorneys for Defendants ARENA HOTEL INVESTMENTS, INC., MILL VALLEY MOTEL INVESTMENTS, INC., MORGAN HILL MOTE INVESTMENTS, INC., and NEEDLES MOTEL INVESTMENTS, LLC 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 14 RACHELLE RIDOLA, Plaintiff, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 vs. ARENA HOTEL INVESTMENTS, INC., a California corporation, MILL VALLEY MOTEL INVESTMENTS, INC., a California corporation, MORGAN HILL MOTEL INVESTMENTS, INC., a California corporation, and NEEDLES MOTEL INVESTMENTS, LLC, a California limited liability company, collectively d/b/a ARENA HOTEL; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. 24 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 5:16-cv-01934-NC STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE STIPULATION 25 Plaintiff RACHELLE RIDOLA (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants ARENA HOTEL 26 INVESTMENTS, INC., a California corporation, MILL VALLEY MOTEL INVESTMENTS, 27 INC., a California corporation, MORGAN HILL MOTEL INVESTMENTS, INC., a California 28 corporation, and NEEDLES MOTEL INVESTMENTS, LLC, a California limited liability Page 1 of 3 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order 1 company, collectively d/b/a ARENA HOTEL (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their 2 respective attorneys of record, stipulate as follows: 3 4 5 6 7 1. This action shall be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a). 2. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ CONSENT DECREE (Dkt. No. 29). 3. All parties shall bear their own attorney fees and costs in the action. 4. The Court clerk shall close the case file. 8 9 10 Dated: February 26, 2017 /s/ Irene Karbelashvili Irene Karbelashvili, Attorney for Plaintiff RACHELLE RIDOLA Dated: February 27, 2017 /s/ Shane K. Anderies Shane K. Anderies, Attorney for Defendants ARENA HOTEL INVESTMENTS, INC., MILL VALLEY MOTEL INVESTMENTS, INC., MORGAN HILL MOTEL 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 FILER’S ATTESTATION 19 20 21 Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1, I hereby attest that I received the concurrence of counsel for Defendants in the filing of this document. 22 By: 23 /s/ Irene Karbelashvili IRENE KARBELASHVILI 24 25 26 27 28 Page 2 of 3 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 2 3 4 Having reviewed the above stipulation for dismissal by Plaintiff RACHELLE RIDOLA on the one hand and Defendants MILL VALLEY MOTEL INVESTMENTS, INC., a California corporation, MORGAN HILL MOTEL INVESTMENTS, INC., a California corporation, and NEEDLES MOTEL INVESTMENTS, LLC, a California limited liability company, collectively 5 6 d/b/a ARENA HOTEL (collectively “Defendants”), on the other hand, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. This action is dismissed with prejudice against Defendants. 8 2. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ CONSENT DECREE (Dkt. No. 29). 9 10 3. All parties shall bear their own attorney fees and costs in the action. 11 4. The Court clerk shall close the case file. 12 S NO 17 RT 18 T thanael Judge Na 19 20 s A H ER M. Cousin R NIA 16 GRAN FO 15 ________________________________________ United States MagistrateED Judge LI February 27, 2017 Dated: ____________________ UNIT ED 14 RT U O 13 S DISTRICT TE C TA N D IS T IC T R 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 3 of 3 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order OF C

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?