Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MOLSKI v. BAKERY

United States District Court, N.D. California


September 28, 2005.

JAREK MOLSKI, an individual; and DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATION, SERVICES: HELPING YOU HELP OTHERS, a California public benefit corporation, Plaintiffs,
v.
CARMEL BAKERY; TOSH PEPE WEST, INC., Defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: PATRICIA TRUMBULL, Magistrate Judge

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND ORDER THEREON

In accordance with the provisions of Title 28, U.S.C. Section 636(c), the undersigned parties hereby consent to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct any and all further proceedings in the case, including trial, and the entry of a final judgment. The parties, by and through their respective counsel, further stipulate to dismissal of this action in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(1). However, this stipulation is made on the understanding that should any party not have executed the Mutual Settlement Agreement and Release herein before October 15, 2005, this stipulation may be withdrawn and the matter put back on the Court's trial calendar. In addition, the parties consent to and request that the Court retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement herein. See Kokonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (empowering the district courts to retain jurisdiction over enforcement of settlement agreements).

  Therefore, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between parties to this action through their designated counsel that the above-captioned action be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure section 41(a)(1).

  ORDER

  IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(1) unless one of the parties hereto notifies the Court on or before October 15, 2005, the settlement has not been consummated through full execution of the Mutual Settlement Agreement and Release. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the parties' settlement should such enforcement be necessary.

20050928

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.