Brooke v. River Park Hospitality Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided September 28, 2020·No. 1:20-cv-00102·Unknown

Opinion

1.40 UV VULYVO WAND PVVULPIOEIt Ot □□□ Vaicorecy Paye +vrst

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9} THERESA BROOKE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00102-SAB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST THE 11 v. DOCKET TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 41 (a) 12 | RIVER PARK HOSPITALITY INC., OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 13 Defendant. (ECF No. 30) 14 15 On September 25, 2020, a stipulation was filed dismissing this action with prejudice and 16 | with each party to bear its own costs and fees. In light of the stipulation of the parties, this action 17 | has been terminated, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)Gi); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 18 | 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been dismissed with prejudice and without an award of costs or 19 | attorneys’ fees. 20 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to CLOSE the file in this 21 | case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule □□ (a). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 FA. 54 | Dated: _ September 25, 2020 ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28

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

Brooke v. River Park Hospitality Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Brooke v. River Park Hospitality Inc. (Brooke v. River Park Hospitality Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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