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)

Download PDF
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?