From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Mart

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division
Oct 2, 2015
2:11-CV-00976-JAM-DAD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2015)

Opinion

          BRUCE D. CELEBREZZE, ALEXANDER E. POTENTE, SEDGWICK LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, formerly known as ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, as successor to GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY.

          OSBORNE & NESBITT LLP, Gary W. Osborne, Dominic S. Nesbitt, Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant BEL AIR MART.


          STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE [Fed.R.Civ.P. 41]

          JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

         Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff/counterdefendant Arrowood Indemnity Company, formerly known as Royal Indemnity Company, as successor to Globe Indemnity Company ("Arrowood") and defendant/counterclaimant Bel Air Mart, by and through their respective attorneys of record, stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, all claims involving defendants R. Gern Nagler, as Trustee of the John W. Burns Testimentary Trust, and Robert Gern Nagler, individually, were dismissed with prejudice on January 16, 2015;

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED THAT the remaining entirety of the action, including all claims by Arrowood and Bel Air Mart, be dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

          ORDER

         Having reviewed the Stipulation set forth above, the Court hereby adopts the terms set forth therein by way of this Order.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Mart

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division
Oct 2, 2015
2:11-CV-00976-JAM-DAD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2015)
Case details for

Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Mart

Case Details

Full title:ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation formerly known as ROYAL…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division

Date published: Oct 2, 2015

Citations

2:11-CV-00976-JAM-DAD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2015)