The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Thelton E. Henderson United States District Court Judge
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR DISM ISSAL OF STATE LAW CLAIM S
It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties, by and through their respective counsel, as 2 follows: 3
1. On October 2, 2007, the plaintiff filed a complaint and demand for trial by jury in this 4 case, setting forth six causes of action, including the first cause of action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5 section 1983, and five causes of action based in California state law. Specifically, the claims based on 6 state law include a second cause of action for battery, a third cause of action for false arrest and illegal 7 imprisonment, a fourth cause of action for negligence, a fifth cause of action for intentional infliction 8 of emotional distress and a sixth cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (the "State 9 Law Claims"). The court ordered that plaintiff's cause of action for false arrest be dismissed as to all 10 defendants. (Docket No. 89). The court also ordered that plaintiff's claims against the Lake County 11
Sheriff's Department be dismissed on the basis that the Sheriff's Department is not a proper defendant 12 to a Section 1983 claim. (Docket No. 11). The court, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, ordered that 13 plaintiff's claims against the County of Lake and Sheriff Rodney K. Mitchell be dismissed with 14 prejudice. (Docket No. 228). 15
2. Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss all remaining State Law Claims against the remaining 16 defendants, Richard Ward and Paul DeShong. Specifically, plaintiff agrees to dismiss the second, 17 fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action in exchange for the agreement of defendants Richard Ward and Paul DeShong to waive their right to recovery of litigation costs relating to the remaining State Law 19 Claims. 20
3. IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN ALL PARTIES to this 21 stipulation, by and through their respective attorneys of record, that the plaintiff's remaining State Law 22 Claims, including the second, fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action of the Complaint, be dismissed with 23 prejudice. The parties further stipulate that the trial of this matter shall proceed on the sole federal claim 24 set forth in plaintiff's first cause of action based upon an alleged violation of plaintiff's 4th Amendment 25 rights. 26
4. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN ALL PARTIES to this stipulation, 27 by and through their respective attorneys of record, that defendants Richard Ward and Paul DeShong 28 waive their right to recover litigation costs relating to the State Law Claims set forth in the Complaint.
Dated: January 6, 2012 LAW OFFICES OF BARON J. DREXEL LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES F. BOURDON By: //s// Baron J. Drexel BARON J. DREXEL CHARLES F. BOURDON Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: January 6, 2012 7 JONES & DYER By: //s// Mark A. Jones MARK A. JONES KRISTEN K. PRESTON Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Richard Ward Dated: January 6, 2012 PORTER SCOTT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION By //s// John R. Whitefleet TERENCE J. CASSIDY JOHN R. WHITEFLEET Attorney for Defendant Deputy Paul DeShong
The Court, having considered the foregoing stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing 20 therefore, hereby order that plaintiff's State Law Claims set forth in plaintiff's second, fourth, fifth and 21 sixth causes of action be, and hereby are, dismissed with prejudice.
The Court further orders that, by stipulation, defendants Richard Ward
and Paul DeShong are 23 precluded from recovery of costs of litigation
relating to plaintiff's State Law Claims on the basis of this
Court's dismissal of plaintiff's State Law Claims with prejudice.
Trial in this matter shall proceed on the 25 first cause of action
only, namely plaintiff's federal law claim of alleged violation of
plaintiff's 4th 26
Amendment rights. 27
Pursuant to stipulation, it is so ordered.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...