Eisele v. INDIAN HILLS GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT et al
Filing
29
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE on 28 Stipulation. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/2/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
Rebecca Bruch, Esq. (SBN 7289)
Charity Felts, Esq. (SBN 10581)
Erickson, Thorpe & Swainston, LTD.
99 West Arroyo Street
Reno, NV 89509
(775) 786-3930
(775) 786-4160-Facsimile
Attorney for Defendant
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
SANDI EISELE,
Case No.: 3:12-cv-00531-MMD-VPC
an individual,
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE
10
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
INDIAN HILLS GENERAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT,
a governmental entity, JOHN
LUFRANO, an individual,
14
15
16
Defendants.
____________________________/
17
Plaintiff In Pro Per, SANDI EISELE, and Defendants, INDIAN HILLS GENERAL
18
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT and JOHN LUFRANO by and through their Counsel of Record,
19
Erickson, Thorpe & Swainston, Ltd., and Rebecca Bruch, Esq., hereby stipulate and agree that this
20
21
22
[Remainder of page left intentionally blank.]
23
24
25
26
27
28
Erickson, Thorpe
& Swainston, Ltd.
P. O. Box 3559
Reno, NV 89505
(775) 786-3930
-1-
1
action should be dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its, his or her attorneys fees and
2
costs.
3
DATED this 2nd day of August, 2013.
DATED this 2nd day of August, 2013.
4
SANDI EISELE
ERICKSON, THORPE & SWAINSTON, LTD.
By: /s/ Sandi Eisele
SANDI EISELE
984 Dean Drive
Gardnerville, Nevada 89460
Pro Se
By: /s/ Rebecca Bruch
REBECCA BRUCH, ESQ.
99 W. Arroyo Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
Attorneys for Defendant
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 2, 2013
Dated: _______________________
________________________________
United States District Court Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Erickson, Thorpe
& Swainston, Ltd.
P. O. Box 3559
Reno, NV 89505
(775) 786-3930
-2-
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?