Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00601/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00601-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

{00209600;1} 1

STIPULATION RE: DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ERIC B. KINGSLEY, Esq. (SBN 185123)

eric@kingsleykingsley.com

KELSEY M. SZAMET, Esq. (SBN 260264)

kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com

ARI J. STILLER, Esq. (SBN 294676)

ari@kingsleykingsley.com

KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC

16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200

Encino, CA 91436

(818) 990-8300, Fax (818) 990-2903

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

Daniel K. Klingenberger, Esq. (SBN 131134)

Kelly A. Lazerson, Esq. (SBN 151056)

LAW OFFICES OF

LEBEAU • THELEN, LLP

5001 East Commercenter Drive, Suite 300

Post Office Box 12092

Bakersfield, California 93389-2092

(661) 325-8962; Fax (661) 325-1127

dklingenberger@lebeauthelen.com

klazerson@lebeauthelen.com

Attorneys for Esparza Enterprises, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLGA CASILDO; JAIME CHINO 

SEVERIANO, as individuals, on behalf of 

themselves and others similarly situated

PLAINTIFFS,

v.

ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC; and DOES 

1 thru 50, inclusive,

DEFENDANTS.

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00601-LJO-JLT

STIPULATION RE: DISMISSAL OF 

PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS WITH 

PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

(Doc. 56)

Case 1:17-cv-00601-LJO-JLT Document 57 Filed 01/30/20 Page 1 of 4
{00209600;1} 2

STIPULATION RE: DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs Olga Casildo, Jaime Chino Severiano, Ofelia Tornes Aguilar, Juan Carlos 

Veronica Loreto, Moises Veronica Loreto, Marisela Serna, Hermina Veronica Loreto, Margarita 

Casildo Bailon, Emanuel Casimiro Nandi, Elida Ramirez, and Jasmin Castro Grande (“Plaintiffs”)

and Defendant Esparza Enterprises, Inc. (“Esparza” or “Defendant”), by and through their 

respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs are a group of 11 current and former field workers who allege wageand-hour violations against Defendant;

WHEREAS, this matter was originally filed as a class action, but after filing, Defendant 

resolved the class claims through the settlement in a related case, Clendenen v. Esparza 

Enterprises, Inc. et al., (“Clendenen”) Case No. S-1500-CV-281278-SPC, filed February 10, 2014 

in Kern County Superior Court;

WHEREAS, several employees appealed the order approving the Clendenen settlement 

and this Court stayed the instant matter while the appeal was pending;

WHEREAS, the Court lifted the stay after the Clendenen appeal was dismissed and the 

settlement became final (Doc. 16);

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed amended complaints removing class allegations and adding 

claims for the above-named 11 individual Plaintiffs who had opted out of the Clendenen settlement 

(see Docs. 17, 27, 23, 30);

WHEREAS, on November 1, 2019, the Parties filed a joint Notice of Settlement in 

Principle, advising the Court that they had reached a settlement in principle and were negotiating 

the terms of a written agreement (Doc. 51);

WHEREAS, the Court has now ordered the parties to file a stipulation of dismissal by 

February 3, 2020 and to clarify whether the action has settled only the individual claims of the 

named Plaintiffs or whether the claims of the class have likewise been settled; 

WHEREAS, the parties have entered into a settlement of only the individual claims as 

those are the only claims now at issue following the earlier stipulated and ordered dismissal of 

class claims (see Doc. 16, fn. 1; Docs. 17, 23, 30); 

WHEREAS, the parties have entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and 

Case 1:17-cv-00601-LJO-JLT Document 57 Filed 01/30/20 Page 2 of 4
{00209600;1} 3

STIPULATION RE: DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

General Release of All Claims requiring the Plaintiffs to dismiss the current case with prejudice;

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and 

agree to the dismissal with prejudice of this action and of all claims raised herein against 

Defendants. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: January 30, 2020 KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC

By: /s/ Ari J. Stiller

Eric B. Kingsley

Ari J. Stiller

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class 

DATED: January 30, 2020 LEBEAU • THELEN, LLP

By: /s/ Kelly Lazerson

Kelly Lazerson

Attorneys for Defendant Esparza Enterprises, Inc.

Case 1:17-cv-00601-LJO-JLT Document 57 Filed 01/30/20 Page 3 of 4
{00209600;1} 4

ORDER RE: DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

The parties have settled their case and have stipulated to the action being dismissed with 

prejudice. (Doc. 56) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41 makes such stipulations 

effective immediately with further order of the Court. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 

692 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00601-LJO-JLT Document 57 Filed 01/30/20 Page 4 of 4