Filed: Jan. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2014
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO WITHDRAWAL COUNT I OF PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge. Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil L.R. 6.1 and 6.2, Plaintiffs, Patrick Ursomano, Giovanni Canonico and Ursula Canonico (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") (together, the "Parties") respectfully submit the following Joint Stipulation to the Voluntary Di
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO WITHDRAWAL COUNT I OF PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge. Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil L.R. 6.1 and 6.2, Plaintiffs, Patrick Ursomano, Giovanni Canonico and Ursula Canonico (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") (together, the "Parties") respectfully submit the following Joint Stipulation to the Voluntary Dis..
More
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO WITHDRAWAL COUNT I OF PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil L.R. 6.1 and 6.2, Plaintiffs, Patrick Ursomano, Giovanni Canonico and Ursula Canonico (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") (together, the "Parties") respectfully submit the following Joint Stipulation to the Voluntary Dismissal, with prejudice, of Count One of the First Amended Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 4) in the above-captioned action, which alleges violation of the Anti-Tying Provisions of the Bank Holding Act, 12 U.S.C. §1972, et seq. against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Patrick Ursomano, Giovanni Canonico and Ursula Canonico filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "FACC") against Defendants on October 4, 2013. See ECF No. 4. The FACC alleges claims for violation of the Anti-Tying Provisions of the Bank Holding Act, 12 U.S.C. §1972, et seq, (Count One) against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and violation of the California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq., (Count Two) against all Defendants.
WHEREAS, Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 15, 2014. See ECF No. 38.
WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to the voluntary dismissal of Count One (Violation of the Anti-Tying Provisions of the Bank Holding Act, 12 U.S.C. §1972, et seq.), only, with prejudice, thereby obviating the need for the Court to rule upon or address any issues surrounding Count One of the FACC in connection with the Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Count One of the First Amended Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 4) in the above-captioned action, which alleges a violation of the Anti-Tying Provisions of the Bank Holding Act, 12 U.S.C. §1972, et seq., against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.
2. Each party shall bear his, her or its own costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and waives any rights of appeal that may exist as to the dismissal of the claim under the Anti-Tying Provisions of the Bank Holding Act.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
