Donoho v. County of Sonoma, C15-01392-WHO. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160510981
Visitors: 13
Filed: May 09, 2016
Latest Update: May 09, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE SUBJECT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE SUBJECT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Plaintiff JULIA DONOHO, with stipulation of defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA, hereby dismisses the above-entitled action pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 41 with prejudice, subject to the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. Each party shall bear its own fees and costs. ORDER Pursuant to the parties'
Summary: STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE SUBJECT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE SUBJECT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Plaintiff JULIA DONOHO, with stipulation of defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA, hereby dismisses the above-entitled action pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 41 with prejudice, subject to the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. Each party shall bear its own fees and costs. ORDER Pursuant to the parties' s..
More
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE SUBJECT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE SUBJECT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Plaintiff JULIA DONOHO, with stipulation of defendant COUNTY OF SONOMA, hereby dismisses the above-entitled action pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 41 with prejudice, subject to the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.
Each party shall bear its own fees and costs.
ORDER
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the action is dismissed with prejudice, subject to the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. Each party to bear its own fees and costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
