Beavers v. Martinfederal Consulting, LLC, 4:19-cv-00302 KGB. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20191108c33
Visitors: 14
Filed: Nov. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER KRISTINE G. BAKER , District Judge . Before the Court is a motion for admission pro hac vice of attorney Robert C. Lockwood filed by local counsel David M. Fuqua on behalf of defendant Martinfederal Consulting, LLC (Dkt. No. 7). Pursuant to the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, the Court grants the motion to admit Mr. Lockwood pro hac vice, and he shall appear as counsel for defendant Martinfederal Consulting, LLC.
Summary: ORDER KRISTINE G. BAKER , District Judge . Before the Court is a motion for admission pro hac vice of attorney Robert C. Lockwood filed by local counsel David M. Fuqua on behalf of defendant Martinfederal Consulting, LLC (Dkt. No. 7). Pursuant to the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, the Court grants the motion to admit Mr. Lockwood pro hac vice, and he shall appear as counsel for defendant Martinfederal Consulting, LLC. L..
More
ORDER
KRISTINE G. BAKER, District Judge.
Before the Court is a motion for admission pro hac vice of attorney Robert C. Lockwood filed by local counsel David M. Fuqua on behalf of defendant Martinfederal Consulting, LLC (Dkt. No. 7). Pursuant to the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, the Court grants the motion to admit Mr. Lockwood pro hac vice, and he shall appear as counsel for defendant Martinfederal Consulting, LLC. Local Rule 83.5(d).
Also, before the Court is the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. No. 8). The stipulation accords with the terms of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Further, because all parties agree that this is not a collective action, the individual plaintiff was represented by an attorney from the time of filing the complaint through the conclusion of settlement negotiations, and all parties have indicated to the Court in writing through their attorneys that they wish for their settlement agreement to remain private and do not wish for any review of their settlement agreement to occur, the Court determines that it need not review the settlement agreement. For good cause shown, the Court adopts the stipulation of dismissal. The action is dismissed with prejudice.
It is so ordered.
Source: Leagle
