Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05157/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05157-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

RENNE SLOAN 

HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP 

Attorneys at Law 

1

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (BREACH OF 

EXPRESS CONTRACT) AND SEVENTH CAUSEOF ACTION (BREACH OF IMPLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT) – CASE NO.: C09-05157 

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

TIMOTHY G. YEUNG (SBN 186170) 

KERRY R. O’DONNELL (257872 ) 

RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP 

350 Sansome Street, Suite 300 

San Francisco, CA 94104-1304 

Telephone: (415) 678-3800 

Facsimile: (415) 678-3838 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CTTY OF OAKLAND 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DEBRA TAYLOR JOHNSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CITY OF OAKLAND, 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: C09-05157 

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 

DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S SIXTH 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF (BREACH OF 

EXPRESS CONTRACT) AND SEVENTH 

CAUSEOF ACTION (BREACH OF 

IMPLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT) 

Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties to this action, by and 

through their attorneys of record do hereby agree and stipulate that: 

(1) Pursuant to meet-and-confer efforts between the parties, Plaintiff Debra Taylor Johnson shall, 

and hereby does, dismiss the following claims in her Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive 

Relief, filed December 7, 2009: Sixth Claim for Relief (Breach of Express Contract) and Seventh Cause 

of Action (Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract).1 Defendant City of Oakland will not be required to 

respond to these claims in its responsive pleading; 

 

1

 The first six claims in the Amended Complaint were captioned as “Claim for Relief,” while the last claim was inadvertently 

captioned as “Cause of Action.” The difference in captions is immaterial, but is noted for purposes of clarity. 

Case 3:09-cv-05157-RS Document 11 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 2
RENNE SLOAN 

HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP 

Attorneys at Law 

2

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (BREACH OF 

EXPRESS CONTRACT) AND SEVENTH CAUSEOF ACTION (BREACH OF IMPLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT) – CASE NO.: C09-05157 

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

(2) The parties agree that no adverse inferences shall be drawn from the withdrawal of these 

claims. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: January 14, 2010 LAW OFFICES OF SHEILA THOMAS 

 By:______________________________________ 

Sheila Y. Thomas 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Dated: January 14, 2010 RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP 

 

 By:______________________________________ 

Timothy G. Yeung 

Attorneys for City of Oakland 

ORDER

Pursuant to the above Stipulation, Plaintiff’s Sixth Claim for Relief (Breach of Express Contract) and 

Seventh Cause of Action (Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract) are hereby dismissed. The parties shall 

bear their own costs and fees with respect to these claims. No adverse inference shall be drawn from the 

withdrawal/dismissal of these claims. 

Dated: 1/15/10 ______________________________________ 

Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong 

Case 3:09-cv-05157-RS Document 11 Filed 01/19/10 Page 2 of 2