Smith, Jr. v. Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
Filing
21
ORDER Granting 20 Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 02/16/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)
1
2
3
4
5
6
DANIEL M. SHANLEY (NV SBN 6821)
dshanley@deconsel.com
DeCARLO & SHANLEY APC
533 S. Fremont Ave., 9th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-4100
Facsimile: (213) 488-4188
Attorneys for Defendant, SOUTHWEST
REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
WILLIAM SMITH, JR., an individual
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
vs.
SOUTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF
CARPENTERS, DOES 1 through X, inclusive,
ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through X, inclusive,
16
17
18
Defendants.
) Case No. 2:16-cv-02075-RFB-CWH
)
) STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH
) PREJUDICE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) and LR 7-1, the parties hereby stipulate that
2
the above-captioned action be dismissed with prejudice. The stipulation is made in light of the fact that
3
the parties have signed a settlement agreement and the consideration for settlement has been tendered.
4
A proposed order is submitted herewith.
5
6
DATED: February 3, 2017
7
DeCARLO & SHANLEY
A Professional Corporation
/s/ Daniel M. Shanley
Daniel M. Shanley, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant Southwest
Regional Council of Carpenters
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
DATED: January 27, 2017
HATFIELD & ASSOCIATES, LTD
/s/ Trevor J. Hatfield
________
Trevor J. Hatfield, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff William Smith
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
WILLIAM SMITH, JR., an individual
8
9
10
11
Plaintiff,
vs.
SOUTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF
CARPENTERS, DOES 1 through X, inclusive,
ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through X, inclusive,
12
13
Defendants.
14
) Case No. 2:16-cv-02075-RFB-CWH
)
) [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS THE
) ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
15
Having reviewed the parties’ stipulation, and the stipulation being in compliance with Federal
16
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) and LR 7-1, the Court hereby dismisses the action WITH PREJUDICE.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
21
DATED:__________________
____________________________________________
_________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
DANIEL M. SHANLEY (NV SBN 6821)
dshanley@deconsel.com
DeCARLO & SHANLEY APC
533 S. Fremont Ave., 9th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-4100
Facsimile: (213) 488-4188
Attorneys for Defendant, SOUTHWEST
REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
WILLIAM SMITH, JR., an individual
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
vs.
SOUTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF
CARPENTERS, DOES 1 through X, inclusive,
ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through X, inclusive,
16
17
18
Defendants.
) Case No. 2:16-cv-02075-RFB-CWH
)
) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
I hereby certify that I caused a copy of the following document(s):
3
1. STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
4
2. [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
5
6
7
8
9
10
To be delivered via CM/ECF upon all council of record as indicated/listed on the United States District
Court, for the District of Nevada CM/ECF registered email list in the referenced matter as follows.
TREVOR J. HATFIELD, ESQ.
HATFIELD & ASSOCIATES, LTD
703 South Eighth Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Tel: (702) 388-4469
Fax: (702)386-9825
thatfield@hatfieldlawassociates.com
11
12
13
14
15
16
Executed on February 15, 2017, at Los Angeles, California
/s/ Anush Melkonyan
Anush Melkonyan, Legal Assistant
DeCarlo & Shanley, APC
533 S. Fremont Avenue, 9th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Ph.# 213-488-4100
Fax # 213-488-4180
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
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?