1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. URSOMANO v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
 

URSOMANO v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Case No. 13-cv-04381-EMC.

PATRICK URSOMANO, GIOVANNI CANONICO and URSULA CANONICO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., WELLS FARGO INSURANCE, INC., ASSURANT, INC., and AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

January 30, 2014.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

KESSLER TOPAZ , MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, Peter A. Muhic (Pro Hac Vice) Edward W. Ciolko , Radnor, PA, -and- Eli R. Greenstein (SBN 217945), San Francisco, CA, Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes.

SEVERSON & WERSON, P.C. Philip Barilovits (Bar No. 199944), Michael J. Steiner (Bar No. 112079), Mark D. Lonergan (Bar No. 143622), San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc.

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO WITHDRAWAL COUNT I OF PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil L.R. 6.1 and 6.2, Plaintiffs, Patrick Ursomano, Giovanni Canonico and Ursula Canonico (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") (together, the "Parties") respectfully submit the following Joint Stipulation to the Voluntary Dismissal, with prejudice, of Count One of the First Amended Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 4) in the above-captioned action, which alleges violation of the Anti-Tying Provisions of the Bank Holding Act, 12 U.S.C. §1972, et seq. against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Patrick Ursomano, Giovanni Canonico and Ursula Canonico filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "FACC") against Defendants on October 4, 2013. See ECF No. 4. The FACC alleges claims for violation of the Anti-Tying Provisions of the Bank Holding Act, 12 U.S.C. §1972, et seq, (Count One) against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and violation of the California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq., (Count Two) against all Defendants.

WHEREAS, Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 15, 2014. See ECF No. 38.

WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to the voluntary dismissal of Count One (Violation of the Anti-Tying Provisions of the Bank Holding Act, 12 U.S.C. §1972, et seq.), only, with prejudice, thereby obviating the need for the Court to rule upon or address any issues surrounding Count One of the FACC in connection with the Motion to Dismiss.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Count One of the First Amended Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 4) in the above-captioned action, which alleges a violation of the Anti-Tying Provisions of the Bank Holding Act, 12 U.S.C. §1972, et seq., against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

2. Each party shall bear his, her or its own costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and waives any rights of appeal that may exist as to the dismissal of the claim under the Anti-Tying Provisions of the Bank Holding Act.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases