Ortiz v. SHAC LLC

1 Gustavo Ponce, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 15084 2 KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 4 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: gustavo@kazlg.com [5] PARKER COLE, P.C. 6 Michael R. Parker (Pro Hac Vice) Kevin Cole (Pro Hac Vice) 7 6700 Fallbrook Ave, Suite 207 West Hills, CA 91307 8 Telephone: (818) 292-8800 Facsimile: (818) 292-8337 9 E-mail: michael@parkercolelaw.com E-mail: kevin@parkercolelaw.com [10] Attorneys for Plaintiff 11 Abigail Ortiz 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 ABIGAIL ORTIZ, individually and on Case No.: 2:20-CV-00621-GMN-BNW behalf of herself and all others similarly 15 situated, Assigned to the Hon. Gloria M. Navarro 16 Plaintiff, VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL BY 17 v. STIPULATION 18 SHAC LLC d/b/a SAPPHIRE GENTLEMEN’S CLUB; and DOES 1 to Complaint Filed: March 31, 2020 19 10, 20 Defendants. [27] 1 The parties to this action, acting through counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule 2 of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby stipulate, in consideration of a negotiated 3 settlement executed by them, to the dismissal with prejudice of this action, including 4 all claims and counterclaims stated herein against all parties, with each party to bear its 5 own attorneys’ fees and costs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (an action may be 6 dismissed at any time by “filing . . . a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who 7 have appeared.”); see Judge Virginia A. Phillips, et al., Federal Civil Procedure Before 8 Trial, Calif. & 9th Cir. Editions § 16:339 (The Rutter Group 2021) (“This [voluntary 9 dismissal by stipulation] allows dismissal without court intervention after plaintiff’s 10 unilateral right to dismiss has been extinguished by service of an answer or summary 11 judgment motion.”) (citing Hester Industries, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 160 F.3d 911 , 12 916 (2d Cir.1998)). 13 In addition, there has been no motion for class certification filed in this action, 14 thus no class has been certified, and it is not necessary to provide notice to the absent 15 putative class members. See id., § 10:790 (“There is no requirement of judicial 16 approval for precertification dispositions. The reason is that absent class members 17 generally have no notice of uncertified class actions and therefore cannot be bound or 18 deemed to have relied thereon.”) (citing Adv. Comm. Notes to 2003 Amendments to 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23). 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 In consideration of the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Court 2 dismiss this action with prejudice. 3 IT IS SO STIPULATED. [4] 5 Dated: July 16, 2021 KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC [7] By: s/ Gustavo Ponce 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 Dated: July 16, 2021 PARKER COLE, P.C. [11] By: s/ Kevin J. Cole [12] Attorneys for Plaintiff [14] Dated: July 16, 2021 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP [16] By: /s/ Alayne Opie [17] Attorneys for Defendant [19] IT IS SO ORDERED. [20] 21 Dated this 1_9_ day of July, 2021. [23] 24 ______________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge [25] United States District Court