Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Trujillo v. Orozco, 1:18-cv-01114-LJO-EPG. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20191008n35 Visitors: 19
Filed: Oct. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 01, 2019
Summary: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS, LUCIA OROZCO DBA LINDO MICHOACAN MARKET 2; AND MARTIN OROZCO DBA LINDO MICHOACAN MARKET 2, ONLY; PROPOSED ORDER LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . WHEREAS, this action arises out of the claims of Plaintiff, Jose Trujillo ("Plaintiff"), that he was denied full and equal access to a business owned and/or operated by Defendants, Lucia Orozco dba Lindo Michoacan Market 2; Martin Orozco dba Lindo Michoacan Market 2; and A & L Partida, LLC in violat
More

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS, LUCIA OROZCO DBA LINDO MICHOACAN MARKET 2; AND MARTIN OROZCO DBA LINDO MICHOACAN MARKET 2, ONLY; PROPOSED ORDER

WHEREAS, this action arises out of the claims of Plaintiff, Jose Trujillo ("Plaintiff"), that he was denied full and equal access to a business owned and/or operated by Defendants, Lucia Orozco dba Lindo Michoacan Market 2; Martin Orozco dba Lindo Michoacan Market 2; and A & L Partida, LLC in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and parallel California law;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has settled his claims in the action with only Defendants, Lucia Orozco dba Lindo Michoacan Market 2; and Martin Orozco dba Lindo Michoacan Market 2 ("the Orozco Defendants"), which settlement did not release Defendant A & L Partida, LLC ("A & L");

WHEREAS, the Orozco and A & L Defendants have appeared in this action;

WHEREAS, despite the diligent efforts of Plaintiff, A & L has not provided approval to dismiss only the Orozco Defendants from this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii);

WHEREAS, no cross-claim, counter-claim or third-party claim has been filed in this action by A & L or any other defendant; and

WHEREAS, Plaintiff wishes to terminate this action against only the Orozco Defendants as agreed in their settlement, which dismissal will be with prejudice.

NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Orozco Defendants hereby respectfully request pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), that only the Orozco Defendants be dismissed from the above-captioned action with prejudice. Each party is to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs.

Dated: September 23, 2019 MOORE LAW FIRM, P.C. /s/ Tanya E. Moore Tanya E. Moore Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jose Trujillo Dated: September 23, 2019 BAKER, MANOCK AND JENSEN, P.C. /s/ Donald R. Forbes Donald R. Forbes Attorneys for Defendants, Lucia Orozco dba Lindo Michoacan Market 2; and Martin Orozco dba Lindo Michoacan Market 2

ATTESTATION

Concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the individual(s) whose electronic signature is attributed above.

/s/ Tanya E. Moore Tanya E. Moore Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jose Trujillo

ORDER

Having reviewed the unopposed Request for Dismissal of Plaintiff and the Orozco Defendants, and no cross-claim, counter-claim or third-party claim having been filed, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants, Lucia Orozco dba Michoacan Market 2 and Martin Orozco dba Lindo Michoacan Market 2, also known as Lucia Orosco and Martin Orosco, and each of them, be dismissed with prejudice. Each party is to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer