Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Vitolo v. Guzman Stipulated Dismissal — Vitolo v. Guzman

Court filing

Stipulated Dismissal — Vitolo v. Guzman

Summary

A Stipulated Dismissal dated August 25, 2021 in Antonio Vitolo et al v. Isabella Casillas Guzman, Case No. 3:21-cv-176, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, docketed as Doc. 50. As provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, the parties stipulate that the action should be dismissed without prejudice. They further agree that each party shall bear its own fees and costs. The two-page filing is signed by counsel for the plaintiffs at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty and, for the defendant, by attorneys of the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

No. 3:21-cv-00176-TRM-DCP · Doc. 50 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

                      IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE


 ANTONIO VITOLO et al,

       Plaintiffs,

       v.                                                   Case No. 3:21-cv-176



 ISABELLA CASILLAS GUZMAN,

       Defendant.



                             STIPULATED DISMISSAL



       As provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, the parties stipulate that

 this action should be dismissed without prejudice. The parties further agree that

 each party shall bear its own fees and costs.

 Dated: Aug. 25, 2021
                                        WISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR LAW & LIBERTY
                                        Rick Esenberg
                                        rick@will-law.org
                                        /s/ Daniel P. Lennington
                                        Daniel P. Lennington
                                        dan@will-law.org
                                        330 E. Kilbourn Ave., Suite 725
                                        Milwaukee, WI 53202
                                        Phone: (414) 727-9455
                                        Fax: (414)727-6385

                                         Attorneys for Plaintiffs




Case 3:21-cv-00176-TRM-DCP Document 50 Filed 08/25/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 391
                                     BRIAN M. BOYNTON
                                     Acting Assistant Attorney General
                                     Civil Division

                                     LESLEY FARBY
                                     Assistant Branch Director

                                     s/Alexandra R. Saslaw
                                     ALEXANDRA R. SASLAW
                                     Trial Attorney
                                     United States Department of Justice
                                     Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
                                     P.O. Box 883
                                     Washington, DC 20044
                                     Phone: (202) 514-4520
                                     alexandra.r.saslaw@usdoj.gov

                                    Attorneys for Defendant




                                     -2-

Case 3:21-cv-00176-TRM-DCP Document 50 Filed 08/25/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 392

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.tned.99748.50.0.pdf
Size
79,894 bytes
SHA-256
5a16cd32a6f61f73dcda32952f200e5d89057d84e1baaeccf09d12b3a43b7316
Our copy
gov.uscourts.tned.99748.50.0.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
  1. Prisoner Petitionssame docket
  2. Government Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)same docket · 2021-08-06
  3. Memorandum Opinion Denying Additional Plaintiffs' TRO — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)same docket · 2021-06-10
  4. Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Second Emergency Motion for TRO — Vitolo v. Guzmansame docket · 2021-06-07
  5. Order Directing Mootness Briefing — Vitolo v. Guzmansame docket · 2021-06-04
  6. Declaration of John A. Miller — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)same docket · 2021-06-03
  7. Government's Response to Second Emergency Motion for TRO — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)same docket · 2021-06-03
  8. Second Emergency Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)same docket · 2021-06-02
  9. Sixth Circuit Opinion — Vitolo v. Guzmansame case · 2021-05-27
  10. Memorandum Opinion Denying PI — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)same case · 2021-05-25
  11. Reply Memorandum in Support of PI — Vitolo v. Guzmansame case · 2021-05-23
  12. Defendant’s Opposition to PI — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)same case · 2021-05-21
  13. Plaintiffs’ Response Regarding Pending PI Motion — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)same case · 2021-05-20
  14. Order Denying Injunction Pending Appeal — Vitolo v. Guzmansame case · 2021-05-20
  15. Notice of Appeal — Vitolo v. Guzmansame case · 2021-05-20
  16. Memorandum Opinion Denying TRO — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)same case · 2021-05-19
  17. Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal — Vitolo v. Guzmansame docket · 2021-05-19
  18. Order Denying TRO — Vitolo v. Guzmansame docket · 2021-05-17
  19. Declaration of Dianna L. Seaborn — Vitolo v. Guzmansame docket · 2021-05-16
  20. Government's Opposition to Motion for TRO — Vitolo v. Guzmansame docket · 2021-05-16

Part of: Vitolo v. Guzman · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee · Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) · Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF) · Other relief programs · Suits against governments and agencies · 2021 · Court filings

Back to top