Johnson v. Dhillon, 5:19-CV-06162-WHO. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20200102449
Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 31, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 31, 2019
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING CASE 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 ninety (90) days from the date below, that settlement has not in fact occurred, this order
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING CASE 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 ninety (90) days from the date below, that settlement has not in fact occurred, this order s..
More
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
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 ninety (90) 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
