Vaughn v. Coach, Inc., 3:16-cv-04633-TEH. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170721664
Visitors: 25
Filed: Jun. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 14, 2017
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (BREACH OF CONTRACT); ORDER THEREON THELTON E. HENDERSON , District Judge . TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: This Stipulation is made by and between Plaintiff MARTHA VAUGHN ("Plaintiff") and Defendant COACH, INC. DBA COACH LEATHERWARE CALIFORNIA INC. ("Defendant") (collectively, the "Parties"), through their respective counsel of record, with reference to the following facts: 1. On November 28, 2016, Pl
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (BREACH OF CONTRACT); ORDER THEREON THELTON E. HENDERSON , District Judge . TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: This Stipulation is made by and between Plaintiff MARTHA VAUGHN ("Plaintiff") and Defendant COACH, INC. DBA COACH LEATHERWARE CALIFORNIA INC. ("Defendant") (collectively, the "Parties"), through their respective counsel of record, with reference to the following facts: 1. On November 28, 2016, Pla..
More
JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (BREACH OF CONTRACT); ORDER THEREON
THELTON E. HENDERSON, District Judge.
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
This Stipulation is made by and between Plaintiff MARTHA VAUGHN ("Plaintiff") and Defendant COACH, INC. DBA COACH LEATHERWARE CALIFORNIA INC. ("Defendant") (collectively, the "Parties"), through their respective counsel of record, with reference to the following facts:
1. On November 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") that alleged, as the Third Claim for Relief, a cause of action for Breach of Contract. The Third Claim for Relief alleged that stock options were not provided to Plaintiff and a putative sub-class identified as the Stock Options Sub-Class.
2. On April 27, 2017, Defendant provided an explanation and supporting documentation demonstrating that Plaintiff has no valid claims related to any stock plans offered to employees by Defendant.
3. Based on the explanation and supporting documentation supplied by Defendant, Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss the Third Claim for Relief with prejudice as to her individual claims arising thereunder and without prejudice as to the putative class members, with all Parties to bear their own fees and costs as to the Third Claim for Relief.
4. The Parties therefore stipulate, pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the Third Claim for Relief with prejudice as to Plaintiff and without prejudice as to the putative class members.
5. Because no class has been certified in this action, the Court's approval of this dismissal is not additionally required pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
Based on the foregoing facts, the Parties Stipulate as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief for Breach of Contract in the FAC, in her individual capacity, is dismissed with prejudice;
2. Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief for Breach of Contract in the FAC, on behalf of the putative sub-class, is dismissed without prejudice;
3. All parties shall bear their own fees and costs as to the Third Claim for Relief for Breach of Contract in the FAC.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
