Severi v. County of Kern
Severi v. County of Kern
Trial Court Opinion
MARGO A. RAISON, COUNTY COUNSEL 1 By: Andrew C. Thomson, Chief Deputy (SBN 149057) 2 Robert J. Rice, Deputy (SBN 131255) Kern County Administrative Center 3 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 4 Telephone 661-868-3800 5 Attorneys for Defendants, County of Kern 6 and Sheriff Donny Youngblood 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 STAN SEVERI and MYRANDA SEVERI, ) Case No. 1:17-CV-00931-AWI-JLT ) 11 Plaintiffs, ) STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF ) ENTIRE CASE INCLUDING 12 vs. ) DEFENDANT, COUNTY OF KERN WITH 13 ) PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER COUNTY OF KERN; KERN COUNTY ) 14 SHERIFF DONNY YOUNGBLOOD; in ) (Doc. 100) his individual capacity; DEPUTY ) 15 GABRIEL ROMO, in his individual ) 16 capacity; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, ) in their individual capacities, ) 17 Defendants. )
18 19 COME NOW the Parties to this matter, Plaintiff, Stan Severi (hereinafter 20 “Plaintiff”) through his counsel of record, Joel Andreesen and Joseph Whittington of 21 Rodriguez and Associates and Defendant, County of Kern (hereinafter “County 22 Defendant”) through their counsel of record Kern County Counsel’s Office by Andrew C. 23 Thomson, Chief Deputy and Robert J. Rice, Deputy, and provide as follows: 24 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the Parties to this action through 25 their designated counsel, that the above-captioned action be dismissed with prejudice in 26 its entirety as to each and every complaint, allegation and/or cause of action against all 27 Defendants, more specifically the dismissal shall include dismissal of the entire action 28 and the applicable complaint of against Defendants County of Kern and Gabriel Romo. 1 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that the aforementioned dismissal is in 2 consideration of a resolution of the matter by the Parties, and that each party hereby 3 agrees to bear all of its/their own costs and attorney’s fees with respect to this litigation. 4 5 Dated: November _18_, 2019 RODRIGUEZ & ASSOCIATES
6
7 By: /s/ Joel Andreesen (As authorized on 11/18/19) Joel Andreesen, Esq. 8 Joseph Whittington, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Stan Severi 9
10
11 Dated: November _18_, 2019 MARGO A. RAISON, COUNTY COUNSEL
12
13 By: /s/ Andrew C. Thomson__________________ Andrew C. Thomson, Chief Deputy 14 Robert J. Rice, Deputy Attorneys for Defendant, County of Kern 15
16 Dated: November _18_, 2019 WEAKLEY & ARENDT, 17 A Professional Corporation 18
19 By: /s/ James Weakley (As authorized on 11/18/19)
20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 The parties have settled their case and have stipulated to the action being dismissed with 3 prejudice in its entirety. (Doc. 100) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41 makes such 4 stipulations effective immediately with further order of the Court. Because all parties who have 5 appeared in the action signed the stipulation (Doc. 22), it “automatically terminate[d] the action.” 6 Wilson v. City of San Jose,
111 F.3d 688, 692(9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is 7 DIRECTED to close this action. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: November 18, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown