Lloyd

Lloyd v. Mullenex

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 19, 20205:19-cv-03999California174 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KENNETH LLOYD, Case No.19-cv-03360-NC Plaintiff, ORDER OF CONDITIONAL

DISMISSAL

S Re: Dkt. No.

E KEVIN MULLENEX

13 Defendant.

Q The Court having been notified of the settlement of this action, and it appearing that 17 || no issue remains for the Court’s determination, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this

|} action and all claims asserted herein are DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of the 19 || Court is directed to administratively close this case. Any party may move to reopen the 20 || case, provided that such motion is filed within 45 days. All scheduled dates are || VACATED. The Court retains jurisdiction over this case for 45 days. See Kokkonen v. Guardian || Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994). IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: February 19, 2020 hGe<——— —_—>

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.