Allen v. County of Inyo

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedAugust 14, 2020
Docket1:20-cv-01040
StatusUnknown

This text of Allen v. County of Inyo (Allen v. County of Inyo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Allen v. County of Inyo, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

WQoeu 1.00 UV VLVETYV YAAb Vel PYVUUPLLIOCEI & raye it Via

1/}PORTER SCOTT 2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Carl L. Fessenden, SBN 161494 3 Matthew W. Gross, SBN 324007 350 University Ave., Suite 200 4 Sacramento, California 95825 TEL: 916.929.1481 5 FAX: 916.927.3706 6 || Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF INYO, INYO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, JEFF R. HOLLOWELL, 7 TAMMY McDEVITT, and PERLA PEREZ g Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Government Code § 6103 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 DANIELLE ALLEN, CASE NO. 1:20-cv-01040-DAD-JLT 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATION DISMISSING JEFF R. HOLLOWELL; ORDER CLOSING THE 14 ACTION AS TO JEFF R. HOLLOWELL (Doc. 6) 15 || COUNTY OF INYO, INYO COUNTY 16 SHERIFF’ SDEPARTMENT, JEFF R. HOLLOWELL, TAMMY McDEVITT, 17 |} PERLA PEREZ, and DOES | through 20, inclusive, 18 19 Defendants.

20 21 22 23 24 wo. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed by and between Plaintiff DANIELLE ALLEN 25 (‘Plaintiff’), and Defendants COUNTY OF INYO, INYO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, JEFF R. 2 6 HOLLOWELL, TAMMY McDEVITT, and PERLA PEREZ, through their respective counsel, that Plaintiff 27 agrees to dismiss the individual Defendant, JEFF R. HOLLOWELL without prejudice. 28

{02258672.DOCX} STIPULATION DISMISSING JEFF R. HOLLOWELL

1 Dated: August 13, 2020 PORTER SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2

3 By ______________________________ Carl L. Fessenden 4 Matthew W. Gross Attorneys for Defendants 5

7 Dated: ________________ LAW OFFICE OF VICTORIA L. CAMPBELL 8

9 By ______________________________ 10 Victoria L. Campbell

12 ORDER 13 The parties have stipulated to the action being dismissed without prejudice as to Jeff R. 14 Hollowell. (Doc. 6) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41 makes such stipulations effective 15 immediately with further order of the Court. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 16 1997). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action as to Jeff R. Hollowell. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: August 13, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wilson v. City of San Jose
111 F.3d 688 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Allen v. County of Inyo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-county-of-inyo-caed-2020.