Casildo v. Esparza Enterprises, Inc ( 2020 )

1 ERIC B. KINGSLEY, Esq. (SBN 185123) eric@kingsleykingsley.com 2 KELSEY M. SZAMET, Esq. (SBN 260264) kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com 3 ARI J. STILLER, Esq. (SBN 294676) 4 ari@kingsleykingsley.com KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 5 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 6 (818) 990-8300, Fax (818) 990-2903 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class 8 Daniel K. Klingenberger, Esq. (SBN 131134) 9 Kelly A. Lazerson, Esq. (SBN 151056) LAW OFFICES OF 10 LEBEAU • THELEN, LLP 5001 East Commercenter Drive, Suite 300 11 Post Office Box 12092 12 Bakersfield, California 93389-2092 (661) 325-8962; Fax (661) 325-1127 13 dklingenberger@lebeauthelen.com klazerson@lebeauthelen.com 14 15 Attorneys for Esparza Enterprises, Inc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 OLGA CASILDO; JAIME CHINO CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00601-LJO-JLT 20 SEVERIANO, as individuals, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated STIPULATION RE: DISMISSAL OF 21 PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS WITH PLAINTIFFS, PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 22 (Doc. 56) v. 23 ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC; and DOES 24 1 thru 50, inclusive, 25 DEFENDANTS. 26 27 1 Plaintiffs Olga Casildo, Jaime Chino Severiano, Ofelia Tornes Aguilar, Juan Carlos 2 Veronica Loreto, Moises Veronica Loreto, Marisela Serna, Hermina Veronica Loreto, Margarita 3 Casildo Bailon, Emanuel Casimiro Nandi, Elida Ramirez, and Jasmin Castro Grande (“Plaintiffs”) 4 and Defendant Esparza Enterprises, Inc. (“Esparza” or “Defendant”), by and through their 5 respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 6 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs are a group of 11 current and former field workers who allege wage- 7 and-hour violations against Defendant; 8 WHEREAS, this matter was originally filed as a class action, but after filing, Defendant 9 resolved the class claims through the settlement in a related case, Clendenen v. Esparza 10 Enterprises, Inc. et al., (“Clendenen”) Case No. S-1500-CV-281278-SPC, filed February 10, 2014 11 in Kern County Superior Court; 12 WHEREAS, several employees appealed the order approving the Clendenen settlement 13 and this Court stayed the instant matter while the appeal was pending; 14 WHEREAS, the Court lifted the stay after the Clendenen appeal was dismissed and the 15 settlement became final (Doc. 16); 16 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed amended complaints removing class allegations and adding 17 claims for the above-named 11 individual Plaintiffs who had opted out of the Clendenen settlement 18 (see Docs. 17, 27, 23, 30); 19 WHEREAS, on November 1, 2019, the Parties filed a joint Notice of Settlement in 20 Principle, advising the Court that they had reached a settlement in principle and were negotiating 21 the terms of a written agreement (Doc. 51); 22 WHEREAS, the Court has now ordered the parties to file a stipulation of dismissal by 23 February 3, 2020 and to clarify whether the action has settled only the individual claims of the 24 named Plaintiffs or whether the claims of the class have likewise been settled; 25 WHEREAS, the parties have entered into a settlement of only the individual claims as 26 those are the only claims now at issue following the earlier stipulated and ordered dismissal of 27 class claims (see Doc. 16, fn. 1; Docs. 17, 23, 30); 1 General Release of All Claims requiring the Plaintiffs to dismiss the current case with prejudice; 2 NOW THEREFORE, the Parties, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and 3 agree to the dismissal with prejudice of this action and of all claims raised herein against 4 Defendants. 5 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 6 DATED: January 30, 2020 KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 7 By: /s/ Ari J. Stiller 8 Eric B. Kingsley 9 Ari J. Stiller Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class 10 11 DATED: January 30, 2020 LEBEAU • THELEN, LLP 12 13 By: /s/ Kelly Lazerson Kelly Lazerson 14 Attorneys for Defendant Esparza Enterprises, Inc. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 ORDER 2 The parties have settled their case and have stipulated to the action being dismissed with 3 prejudice. (Doc. 56) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41 makes such stipulations 4 effective immediately with further order of the Court. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 5 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: January 30, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27