Filed: Apr. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 03, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION TO DISMISS CASE WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(2); AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CLAUDIA WILKEN , Senior District Judge . RECITALS A. This case (" Turkle Trust II ") is substantially similar to James L. Turkle Trust v. Wells Fargo & Company, Case No. C-11-06494-CW (N.D. Cal.) (" Turkle Trust I "). B. Turkle Trust I was dismissed in 2012. James L. Turkle Trust v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. C-11-6494-CW, 2012 WL 2568208 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2012). C. That dismiss
Summary: STIPULATION TO DISMISS CASE WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(2); AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CLAUDIA WILKEN , Senior District Judge . RECITALS A. This case (" Turkle Trust II ") is substantially similar to James L. Turkle Trust v. Wells Fargo & Company, Case No. C-11-06494-CW (N.D. Cal.) (" Turkle Trust I "). B. Turkle Trust I was dismissed in 2012. James L. Turkle Trust v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. C-11-6494-CW, 2012 WL 2568208 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2012). C. That dismissa..
More
STIPULATION TO DISMISS CASE WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(2); AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CLAUDIA WILKEN, Senior District Judge.
RECITALS
A. This case ("Turkle Trust II") is substantially similar to James L. Turkle Trust v. Wells Fargo & Company, Case No. C-11-06494-CW (N.D. Cal.) ("Turkle Trust I").
B. Turkle Trust I was dismissed in 2012. James L. Turkle Trust v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. C-11-6494-CW, 2012 WL 2568208 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2012).
C. That dismissal was appealed. 9th Cir. Docket No. 12-16629.
D. On February 5, 2015, Magistrate Judge Corley signed and entered as an order in Turkle Trust II the parties' Stipulation to Stay Case Pending Resolution of Related Appeal, Turkle Trust II Dkt. 8.
E. On February 10, 2015, the panel assigned to hear the Turkle Trust I appeal affirmed the judgment of the district court. James L. Turkle Trust v. Wells Fargo & Co., ___ Fed. Appx. ___, No. 12-16629, 2015 WL 528004 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2015).
F. Nobody filed a petition for rehearing or hearing en banc within the time set by Fed. R. App. P. 35, 40 and 9th Cir. R. 35-1 to 35-3, 40-1.
G. The Ninth Circuit's mandate issued on March 5, 2015 and was filed in the district court in Turkle Trust I the same day.
H. In light of the foregoing, the parties believe it would be appropriate to stipulate to the dismissal of Turkle Trust II.
STIPULATION
Accordingly, all parties, through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request that the Court enter an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) dismissing this action (Turkle Trust II) with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only, each side to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs.
Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the undersigned filer of this document attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other Signatory to this document.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
All parties hereto having so stipulated, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this action (Turkle Trust II) is hereby dismissed with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only, each side to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
