Hernandez v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-01201
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Hernandez v. Securitas, Judge Gilliam dismissed the complaint with prejudice after the parties jointly stipulated to end the action.
Sonia Hernandez and Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.; the action was terminated, all claims were dismissed with prejudice, and each party was to bear its own costs and attorney’s fees.
What happened
Sonia Hernandez sued Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. in Hernandez v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. The opinion does not describe the claims or the underlying dispute.
The parties jointly stipulated that the complaint and all claims would be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). They also agreed that each party would pay its own costs and attorney’s fees.
Judge Haywood Gilliam ordered that the action had been terminated and dismissed with prejudice, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. · No. 4:22-cv-01201
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 9, 2023
Background
Sonia Hernandez brought an action against Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., along with unidentified defendants listed as Does 1 through 50. The opinion does not state what claims Hernandez asserted or describe the facts underlying the lawsuit.
The parties’ stipulation
Hernandez and Securitas jointly stipulated that the complaint and all claims for relief would be dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). A dismissal with prejudice bars the dismissed claims from being brought again in the same action. The parties also agreed that each would bear its own costs and attorney’s fees.
Ruling
Judge Haywood Gilliam stated that, in light of the parties’ stipulation, the action had been terminated and had been dismissed with prejudice. The court directed the clerk to close the case.
Effect
The case ended with all claims dismissed with prejudice. The order did not decide the merits of the claims, and the parties were responsible for their own costs and attorney’s fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.