Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00672/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00672-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

- 1 -

STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING 

CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

 1:15-CV-00672-AWI-EPG

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

Lori J. Gualco, SBN 095232

GUALCO LAW

400 Capitol Mall, Eleventh Floor

Sacramento, CA 95815

TEL: 916-930-0700

FAX: 916-930-0705

ljgualco@gualcolaw.com

GREBEN & ASSOCIATES

125 EAST DE LA GUERRA, SUITE 203

SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101

TEL: 805-963-9090

FAX: 805-963-9098

Jan A. Greben, SBN 103464

jan@grebenlaw.com

Christine M. Monroe, SBN 304573

christine@grebenlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff MISSION LINEN SUPPLY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - FRESNO DIVISION

MISSION LINEN SUPPLY, a California 

Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF VISALIA, and Does 1-20, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00672-AWI-EPG

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT 

LEAVE TO AMEND CERTAIN 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Honorable Judge Anthony W. Ishii

Plaintiff Mission Linen Supply (“Mission Linen”) and the City of Visalia (the “City”) 

(collectively the “Parties”) hereby agree, stipulate and request that the Court enter an Order 

dismissing, without leave to amend, the first, second, third, eighth, twenty-third, twenty-fourth, 

twenty-ninth, thirty-first, thirty-second, thirty-third, thirty-seventh, thirty-eighth and fortieth 

Case 1:15-cv-00672-AWI-EPG Document 31 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING 

CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

 1:15-CV-00672-AWI-EPG

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

affirmative defenses raised by the City in its Answer [Document No. 8], only. All remaining 

affirmative defenses raised in the City’s Answer remain operative.

The dismissal of said affirmative defenses is not intended to operate as an adjudication on the 

merits, and no admission shall be construed as a result of the dismissal. Additionally, the dismissal 

of the first affirmative defense (failure to state a claim) is intended to waive the City’s right to 

challenge the pleadings, and is not intended to operate as a waiver of relief under any substantive 

relief afforded under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 50, 52 or 56, or any other similar 

motions or relief. 

Good cause exists to dismiss said affirmative defenses because this stipulation was reached 

voluntarily and in good faith and following the Parties’ meet and confer efforts, made pursuant to the 

Court’s Scheduling Order [Document 11] and Local Rule 260 regarding Mission Linen’s intent to 

file a motion for partial summary judgment as to certain affirmative defenses raised by the City.

Date: July 19, 2016 GUALCO LAW

/s/ Lori J. Gualco as authorized on 7/19/16

Lori J. Gualco

Attorney for Plaintiff Mission Linen Supply

Date: July 19, 2016 GREBEN & ASSOCIATES

/s/ Jan A. Greben

Jan A. Greben

Christine M. Monroe

Attorneys for Plaintiff Mission Linen Supply

Date: July 19, 2016 HERR, PEDERSEN & BERGLUND LLP

/s/ Leonard C. Herr as authorized on 7/19/16

Leonard C. Herr

Ron Statler

Case 1:15-cv-00672-AWI-EPG Document 31 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING 

CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

 1:15-CV-00672-AWI-EPG

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

Attorneys for Defendant City of Visalia

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Parties having stipulated and agreed, and good cause appearing thereon, it is hereby 

ORDERED:

1. The City’s first, second, third, eighth, twenty-third, twenty-fourth, twenty-ninth, 

thirty-first, thirty-second, thirty-third, thirty-seventh, thirty-eighth and fortieth 

affirmative defenses, as set forth in its Answer filed in the above captioned case as 

Document No. 8, are hereby dismissed without leave to amend.

2. The stipulation and Order shall not operate as an adjudication on the merits or 

admission by either party.

3. The dismissal of the first affirmative defense (failure to state a claim) shall not 

operate as a waiver of the City’s right to substantive relief under the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.

4. All remaining affirmative defenses raised in the City’s Answer remain operative.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00672-AWI-EPG Document 31 Filed 07/21/16 Page 3 of 3