Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03147/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03147-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

-1- Law Offices of

David S. Secrest

El Granada, CA Stephen Williams v. SBC Communications, U.S.D.C., No. Cal., No. 3:05-cv-3147-EMC

Law Offices of David S. Secrest

A Professional Corporation

David S. Secrest, Esq. [State Bar #142299]

504 Plaza Alhambra, Suite 201

P. O. Box 1029

El Granada, CA 94018-1029

Tel: 650-726-7461

Fax: 650-726-7471

Attorney for Plaintiff

Stephen Williams

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

MARILYN MOOMAU, an individual, and

DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C-05-01734 JF

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

3147 MMC

OF FIFTH AND SIXTH CAUSES OF 

ACTION
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

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

-2- Law Offices of

David S. Secrest

El Granada, CA Stephen Williams v. SBC Communications, U.S.D.C., No. Cal., No. 3:05-cv-3147-EMC

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

designated counsel, that the following causes of action be and hereby are dismissed pursuant to

FRCP 41(a)(1),1 without any prejudice to the right by Defendants SBC Communications, Inc., and

Marilyn Moomau to oppose any Motion for Remand by Plaintiff.

1. Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action for Interference/Restraint/Denial of Rights

under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) [29 USC §2615(a)(1); 29

CFR §825.220(a)(1)]; and

2. Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action for Discrimination, Discharge and

Retaliation in Violation of the FMLA [29 USC §2615(a)(2); 29 CFR

§825.220(a)(2), (3), (c)].

Dated: September 2, 2005

Law Offices of David S. Secrest,

A Professional Corporation

By: /s/ David S. Secrest

David S. Secrest

Attorney for Plaintiff

Stephen Williams

Dated: September 2, 2005

Robert Joseph Pia, Esq.

Law Offices of Robert Pia

By: /s/ Robert Joseph Pia

Attorneys for Defendants

SBC Communications, Inc., and Marilyn Moomau

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Hon. Edward M. Chen

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated:

1 Where plaintiff wants to drop certain claims but not to dismiss any defendant, the proper procedure

is to amend the complaint. FRCP 15(a); Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant (9th Cir., 1988), 861 F2d

1389, 1392. “Alternatively, the parties may agree that certain claims will not be pursued or will be

dismissed; or that the pleadings be amended to eliminate such claims. Such agreement is no doubt

enforceable even without a formal motion to amend or dismiss.” Schwarzer, Tashima, and Wagstaffe,

California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter Group, 2004); §§16:311-312.

September 21, 2005

Maxine M. Chesney

United States District Judge