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.

Dorger v. City of Napa

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 7, 2013

SAMANDA DORGER AND GABRIELLE POCCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF RICHARD POCCIA, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF NAPA; NAPA POLICE OFFICER BRAD BAKER; NAPA POLICE OFFICER NICK DALESSI; NAPA POLICE SERGEANT AMY HUNTER, Defendants.

Gregory M. Fox, State Bar No. 070876 BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT, San Francisco, California, Michael W. Barrett, City Attorney, State Bar No. 155968 David C. Jones, Deputy City Attorney, State Bar No. 129881 Napa, CA, Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF NAPA and NAPA POLICE OFFICERS BRAD BAKER, NICK DALESSI and AMY HUNTER.

KHALDOUN A. BAGHDADI, WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, Attorneys for Plaintiffs

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DISMISS CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND CERTAIN CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE

WILLIAM ORRICK, District Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties hereto, through their respective undersigned attorneys of record, as follows:

Plaintiffs, acting by and through their counsel of record, dismiss with prejudice defendant City of Napa Police Officer Brad Baker in his individual capacity and his capacity as a Napa Police Officer employed by the City of Napa from the entire action as set forth more fully in the Third Amended Complaint (TAC). The parties agree to waive their respective fees and costs relative to the prosecution and defense of defendant Brad Baker.

Plaintiffs, acting by and through their counsel of record, dismiss with prejudice the entire Fourth Claim of Relief ( Monell Liability) in the TAC naming the defendant City of Napa and all Does 1 through 10 named therein and the Monell claims in all related paragraphs in the complaint including paragraphs, 28, 29, and 30. The parties agree to waive their respective fees and costs relative to the prosecution and defense of the City of Napa from the allegations of the Fourth Claim For Relief and paragraphs specified herein.

Plaintiffs, acting by and through their counsel of record, dismiss with prejudice the Fifth Claim for Relief in the TAC seeking direct and personal liability against the City of Napa including all references to the City in paragraphs 65, 66, 67, 68. The City of Napa remains as a defendant in the Fifth Claim for Relief as employer of defendants Dalessi and Hunter for the alleged tortious acts of its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior as set forth in the Fifth Claim for Relief and which is set forth more fully in paragraph 71. The parties agree to waive their respective fees and costs relative to the prosecution and defense of the City of Napa from the allegations of the Fifth Claim For Relief as specified herein.

Plaintiffs acting by and through their counsel of record dismiss with prejudice the Sixth Claim for Relief in the TAC seeking direct and personal liability against the City of Napa including paragraphs 75 and 76. The City of Napa remains as a defendant in the Sixth Claim for Relief as employer of defendants Dalessi and Hunter for the alleged tortious acts of its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior as set forth in the Sixth Claim for Relief as set forth more fully in paragraph 71 which in incorporated therein as though more fully set forth in the Sixth Claim for Relief. The parties agree to waive their respective fees and costs relative to the prosecution and defense of the City of Napa from the allegations of the Sixth Claim For Relief as specified herein.

Plaintiffs acting by and through their counsel of record dismiss with prejudice all claims for loss of economic support, past, present and future in the TAC that discuss, refer or relate to the alleged wrongful death of Richard Poccia. The parties agree to waive their respective fees and costs relative to the prosecution and defense of the City of Napa from the plaintiffs claims for damages of loss of economic support, past, present and future in the TAC.

Plaintiffs acting by and through their counsel of record dismiss with prejudice all DOE defendants as set forth more fully in paragraph 9 and throughout the TAC.

So Stipulated.

ORDER

Having considered the stipulated request of the parties, the Court orders as follows:

The Stipulation of the Parties regarding dismissal of certain defendants and claims IT IS SO ORDERED and the defendants and claims specified herein in the parties stipulation are dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear their own fees and costs as to these parties and claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.