MIGDAL v. AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, 15-cv-02496-WHO. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160907979
Visitors: 24
Filed: Sep. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 06, 2016
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL UPON SETTLEMENT Re: Dkt. No. 39. WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . The parties to the action, by and through their counsel, have advised the Court that they have agreed to a settlement. IT IS ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and any hearings scheduled in this matter are VACATED. It is further ordered that if any party certifies to this Court, with proper notice to opposing counsel within sixty (60) days from the date below, that settlement has not
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL UPON SETTLEMENT Re: Dkt. No. 39. WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . The parties to the action, by and through their counsel, have advised the Court that they have agreed to a settlement. IT IS ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and any hearings scheduled in this matter are VACATED. It is further ordered that if any party certifies to this Court, with proper notice to opposing counsel within sixty (60) days from the date below, that settlement has not ..
More
ORDER OF DISMISSAL UPON SETTLEMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 39.
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.
The parties to the action, by and through their counsel, have advised the Court that they have agreed to a settlement.
IT IS ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and any hearings scheduled in this matter are VACATED. It is further ordered that if any party certifies to this Court, with proper notice to opposing counsel within sixty (60) days from the date below, that settlement has not in fact occurred, this order shall be vacated and this cause shall be restored to the calendar for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
