Sardina et al v. Charles et al

Filing 116

ORDER That the parties Stipulation of Dismissal for Plaintiffs Colorado State Law Breach of Contract Claims Against All Defendants 114 , filed February 2, 2016 is approved; and That plaintiffs Colorado state law breach of contract claims agains t all defendants (the Seventh and Eighth Claims for Relief asserted in plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint 48 , filed June 16, 2015) are dismissed with prejudice, with the parties to pay their own attorney fees and costs as to the dismissed claims, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/10/2016. (evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00054-REB-KLM
MARISOL SARDINA A/K/A ALEJANDRA ARREDONDO,
COLUMBA RODRIGUEZ A/K/A ANABEL ECHEVERRIA,
MARGARITA HERRERA A/K/A JESSICA GONZALEZ,
ALBERTO ECHEVERRIA A/K/A JESUS F. GONZALEZ,
ANGELICA LUGO,
BLANCA AVILA A/K/A ROSA MEDINA,
PATRICIA ALEJANDRE GARCIA A/K/A ANA MONCADA,
JESSICA MORALES TAVERA,
MARIA QUINONES M. A/K/A KARIME DOMINGUEZ,
ROSAURA ZAVALA A/K/A ALEJANDRA GUTIERREZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,
v.
TWIN ARCHES PARTNERSHIP, LTD,
LORENA ESTRADA, and
CLIFF PETE,
in their individual and corporate capacities,
Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS
Blackburn, J.
The matter is before me on the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal for Plaintiffs’
Colorado State Law Breach of Contract Claims Against All Defendants [#114],1
filed February 2, 2016. After careful review of the stipulation and the file, I conclude that
the stipulation should be approved and that plaintiffs’ Colorado state law breach of

1

“[#114]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

contract claims against all defendants should be dismissed with prejudice.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal for Plaintiffs’ Colorado State
Law Breach of Contract Claims Against All Defendants [#114], filed February 2,
2016 is approved; and
2. That plaintiffs’ Colorado state law breach of contract claims against all
defendants (the Seventh and Eighth Claims for Relief asserted in plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Complaint [#48], filed June 16, 2015) are dismissed with prejudice, with the
parties to pay their own attorney fees and costs as to the dismissed claims.
Dated February 10, 2016, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2