Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06288/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06288-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Stipulation of Dismissal and [Proposed] Order Thereon CASE NO. 3:18-CV-06288-RS

1 

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

THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH (State Bar #074414)

THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH, 

A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

1165 Hoff way, #203

Orland, CA 95963

Telephone: 530-834-1000

Email: tfrankovich@disabilitieslaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

BYRON CHAPMAN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON CHAPMAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

BOGEY’S CAFÉ; LOUIS J. RAFFI an 

individual; LOUIS J. RAFFI AS 

TRUSTEE OF THE “CREDIT TRUST”; 

SANTA VENICIA PROPERTIES, L.P.; 

CAROLYN L. CRETTI, TRUSTEE OF 

THE SURVIVOR’S TRUST OF THE

“VICTOR CRETTI AND CAROLYN L. 

CRETTI 1990 TRUST, UNDER TRUST 

AGREEMENT DATED MAY 24, 1990, 

AS RESTATED ON JULY 10, 1999, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. 3:18-CV-06288-RS

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON

 The Parties, by and through their respective counsel, stipulate to dismissal of this 

action in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(2). 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between parties to this action through their 

designated counsel that the above-captioned action become and hereby is dismissed with 

prejudice and each side is to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

/// 

///

Case 3:18-cv-06288-RS Document 14 Filed 06/04/19 Page 1 of 3
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Stipulation of Dismissal and [Proposed] Order Thereon CASE NO. 3:18-CV-06288-RS

2 

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

The parties further consent to and request that the Court retain jurisdiction over 

enforcement of the Agreement. See Kokonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) 

(empowering the district courts to retain jurisdiction over enforcement of settlement agreements). 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

 

Dated: May 31, 2019 THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH, APLC 

 A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 

 By: /s/ Thomas E. Frankovich 

 Thomas E. Frankovich 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Dated: May 31, 2019 Sara B. Allman

 By: /s/ Sara B. Allman 

 Sara B. Allman

 Attorney for SANTA VENICIA PROPERTIES LLC

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-06288-RS Document 14 Filed 06/04/19 Page 2 of 3
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Stipulation of Dismissal and [Proposed] Order Thereon CASE NO. 3:18-CV-06288-RS

3 

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

[proposed] ORDER

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 

Fed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(2) and each side is to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. IT IS FURTHER 

ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the parties’ 

Settlement Agreement and General Release should such enforcement be necessary. 

Dated: June 4, 2019 ______________________________ 

 Honorable Judge Richard Seeborg 

 

Case 3:18-cv-06288-RS Document 14 Filed 06/04/19 Page 3 of 3