Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00904/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00904-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR STAY OF ENFORCEMENT PENDING APPEAL – NO BOND REQUIRED (FED. R. CIV. P. 62(d))

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

Christopher Ho, SBC No. 129845

Stacy Villalobos, SBC No. 306710

The LEGAL AID SOCIETY --

 EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600

San Francisco, California 94104-4244

Telephone: (415) 864-8848

Facsimile: (415) 593-0096

Blanca A. Bañuelos, SBC No. 231585

Esmeralda Zendejas, SBC No. 258809

CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL 

 ASSISTANCE, INC.

145 E. Weber Avenue

Stockton, CA 95202

Telephone: (209) 946-0609

Facsimile: (209) 946-5730

Michael L. Meuter, SBC No. 161554

CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL 

 ASSISTANCE, INC.

3 Williams Road

Salinas, CA 93905

Telephone: (831) 757-5221

Facsimile: (831) 757-6212

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ARNULFO ARIAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTHONY RAIMONDO and DOES ONE 

through TWENTY,

Defendants.

Case No.: 2:13-CV-00904-TLN-EFB

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 

STAY OF ENFORCEMENT PENDING 

APPEAL – NO BOND REQUIRED (Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 62(d))

STIPULATION

The Parties to this action, by the signatures of their counsel to this document, stipulate as 

follows:

Case 2:13-cv-00904-TLN-EFB Document 67 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR STAY OF ENFORCEMENT PENDING APPEAL – NO BOND REQUIRED (FED. R. CIV. P. 62(d))

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

1. The Parties agree that they will not appeal the order of costs entered by this Court on 

February 8, 2016, awarding Defendant Anthony Raimondo costs in the amount of $1,498.04.

2. The Parties shall not seek to enforce the order of costs entered by this Court on February 

8, 2016, pending the resolution of the Plaintiff’s appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit of this Court’s order dismissing the First Amended Complaint.

3. Plaintiff José Arnulfo Arias agrees that he will pay the cost award of February 8, 2016,

if this Court’s dismissal of the First Amended Complaint is affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

4. Defendant Raimondo agrees that if this Court’s dismissal of the Complaint is reversed, 

Plaintiff Arias will have no obligation to pay the costs assessed in the February 8, 2016 order.

5. No bond or undertaking will be required to effect the within stipulation.

Dated: February 23, 2016 Blanca A. Bañuelos

Esmeralda Zendejas

Michael L. Meuter

CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, 

INC.

Christopher Ho

Stacy Villalobos

THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY

– EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER

 /s/ Blanca A. Bañuelos 

BLANCA A. BAÑUELOS

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant Jose Arnulfo Arias

Dated: February 23, 2016 Michael L. Farley

FARLEY LAW FIRM

 /s/ Michael L. Farley____________________ 

MICHAEL L. FARLEY

Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee Anthony 

Raimondo

Case 2:13-cv-00904-TLN-EFB Document 67 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR STAY OF ENFORCEMENT PENDING APPEAL – NO BOND REQUIRED (FED. R. CIV. P. 62(d))

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

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the stipulation of the parties concerning the stay of execution and 

enforcement, without bond, of the order assessing costs that was entered by this Court on February 8, 

2016, pending the resolution of the appeal that has been taken to the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit from the Court’s dismissal of the First Amended Complaint.

Good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation of the parties as set forth in this document is the Order of 

this Court on the question of a stay of execution or enforcement of the judgment within the meaning of 

Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2016

Case 2:13-cv-00904-TLN-EFB Document 67 Filed 03/02/16 Page 3 of 3