George Clinton v. Will Adams et al

Filing 114

Joint EX PARTE APPLICATION for Settlement Approval of settlement agreement, Joint EX PARTE APPLICATION to Dismiss Case filed by plaintiff George Clinton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Proposed Order)(Thennisch, Jeffrey)

1
2
3
4

JEFFREY P. THENNISCH (Appearing Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
DOBRUSIN & THENNISCH PC
29 West Lawrence Street, Suite 210
Pontiac, Michigan 48342
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
6

Attorneys for Plaintiff GEORGE CLINTON

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE CLINTON, an individual,

Case No. CV 10-09476 ODW (PLAx)

Plaintiff,

The Honorable Otis D. Wright, II

v.
WILL ADAMS, p/k/a will.i.am,
individually, et al.,

JOINT EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO APPROVE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND DISMISS THE ACTION
UNDER FED.R.CIV.P 41(a)

Defendants.

17
18

Action Filed: December 10, 2010

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In accordance with the Court’s Order dated May 18, 2012 (D/E 113), the
parties reiterate that they have settled and resolved all remaining issues, claims,
and demands in the action and wish to voluntarily dismiss the action under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a), with prejudice and without costs or attorneys’ fees to any
party. The parties reached a settlement through a mediation conducted by Gail
Killefer of the Court’s Mediation Office starting on April 27, 2012 and
culminating on May 11, 2012. The mediation resulted in a voluntary resolution
of the action by all remaining named parties and, as is typical and customary, the
named parties agree to the dismissal of the claims in the action with prejudice.
1

1

Regrettably, and in specific response to the Court’s Show Cause Order

2

dated May 18, 2012, the named parties are uniform in the desire to dismiss the

3

action and have agreed upon the language of the Stipulation for Dismissal

4

attached at Exhibit A hereto for submission to this Court. However, the formal

5

dismissal of the action is complicated by the existence of two separate liens filed

6

and recorded in this action involving the Plaintiff, George Clinton (hereinafter

7

“Mr. Clinton”). More particularly, these lien filings are identified as:

8

(1) The January 3, 2011 lien (D/E 9) under California Code of Civil

9

Procedure Section 708.410 et seq., relating to a judgment lien filed by

10

Hendricks & Lewis, PLLC (hereinafter “H&L” and “the H&L lien”).

11

The H&L lien is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The H&L lien reflects

12

H&L’s status as a judgment creditor by virtue of a judgment from the

13

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Prior to

14

filing the January 3, 2011 lien in this action, H&L filed Hendricks &

15

Lewis PLLC v. George Clinton, Case No. CV10-09921 ODW (PLAx),

16

a separate action also assigned to the Honorable Otis D. Wright, II.

17

This separate action involves the same lien at D/E 9 in this case and the

18

same registered judgment from the Western District of Washington.

19

George Clinton is both the Plaintiff in this action and the Defendant in

20

Case No. 10-09921; and

21

(2) The July 19, 2011 lien (D/E 43) filed by Plaintiff’s former counsel in

22

this action, Allan Law Group, PC (herein after “ALGPAC” and “the

23

ALGPC lien) claiming attorney’ fees and costs in the amount

24

$107,097.67, apparently for different legal matters, a portion of which

25

may involve this action, but without specification or any underlying

26

representation agreement between ALGPAC and Mr. Clinton. The

27

ALGPAC lien is attached hereto as Exhibit C

28
2

Subsequent to the voluntary resolution of this action by the named parties,

1
2

Plaintiff’s undersigned counsel provided both lienholders, H&L and ALGPC,

3

with a copy of the parties proposed Settlement Agreement and asked to initiate a

4

dialogue to address the liens in an agreed-upon manner. Specifically, Plaintiff’s

5

undersigned counsel expressed the following to both lienholders in writing: “It is

6

my hope that we will be able to reach an agreement as to the disposition of these

7

funds and avoid further motion practice.” Plaintiff’s undersigned counsel further

8

states that ALGPAC responded by re-asserting its entitlement to the entirety of

9

the $107,097.67 lien amount while no direct or specific response has been

10

received from H&L’s counsel to date1.

11

In view of this Court’s May 18, 2012 Order at D/E 113, and the parties

12

mutual desire to relieve the named Defendants of further obligations now that the

13

“main” case has been resolved, the parties submit that the present action can now

14

be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a), while the “ancillary” issue of the

15

disposition of the settlement funds between the Plaintiff and the H&L ALGPAC

16

lienholders may be decided by this Court as a form of “supplementary

17

proceedings” within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a).

18

In accordance with this Court’s practice guidelines, it is submitted that

19

adequate grounds exist for an Ex Parte Application since the only reason why the

20

action has not been dismissed is because the January 3, 2011 H&L lien at D/E 9

21

states that no settlement may be entered without either: “(a) the prior approval by

22

order of the court in this action or proceeding has been obtained; (b) the written

23

consent of the person named in item 4 (i.e. H&L); or (c) the money judgment of

24

the person named in item 4 (i.e. H&L) has been satisfied.” D/E 9, page 1 of 6.

25
26
However, the Court is asked to take judicial notice that H&L recently filed yet
another creditor action against Mr. Clinton in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington on April 20, 2012. See Case No. 12-CV-00841
at Exhibit D where H&L is pursuing a debtor examination against Mr. Clinton.
1

27
28

3

1

As neither lienholder has provided its consent and neither lien has been

2

satisfied, the named parties seek the approval of this Court to settle and dismiss

3

the present action. Such approval is warranted. The Court is familiar with the

4

status of this action. The settlement was negotiated with the diligent and

5

continued assistance of the Court’s Mediation Office, and the parties believe that

6

the settlement is fair and reasonable. The present action was filed on December

7

10, 2010, and the proceedings have included discovery, contested motions

8

including motions for partial summary judgment, and the addition of substituted

9

attorneys for each of the main parties. The parties negotiated the settlement in

10

view of the status of this action, the amounts at issue, and the expenditure of time

11

and money necessary to continue to litigate this action. The two lienholders

12

(H&L and ALGPAC) will not be prejudiced by entry of the order requested since

13

the settlement funds will not be disbursed until their agreement or further order of

14

the Court. Rather, both lienholders will have full and fair opportunity to assert

15

the validity of their respective claims and demands vis-a-vis each other and the

16

Plaintiff in the separate and accompanying Plaintiff’s motion for division and

17

distribution of settlement funds to be filed under seal. It is submitted that issue

18

can readily be decided in an ancillary or “supplementary proceeding” after this

19

action is dismissed.

20

In contrast, the point of this Joint Ex Parte Application is to relieve the

21

named Defendants from any further involvement and expenditure in this matter.

22

However, Plaintiff acknowledges that it will have a continuing obligation to

23

engage in further proceedings with the two (2) lienholders under at least

24

Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a)(1) to resolve competing claims and liens involving the

25

settlement funds. For that reason, the proposed order provides that Defendants

26

will disburse the settlement funds only in accordance with any Court order or

27

agreement between Plaintiff and the H&L lien holders. Defendants take no

28

position with respect to the appropriate disposition of the settlement funds.
4

1

Finally, in an effort to bring final closure to this action, Plaintiff requests

2

that, after approval of the settlement and dismissal of the action as proposed in the

3

Stipulated Dismissal at Exhibit A hereto, the Court consider addressing the two

4

liens at D/E 9 and D/E 43 in the following manner:

5

1. To the extent that the Court agrees that the disposition of the two (2)

6

separate liens and administration of the settlement funds falls within the

7

Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff is filing concurrently the

8

accompanying “Motion For Distribution And Division Of Settlement

9

Funds”, under seal, which outlines the known competing liens and

10

claims to the settlement funds and to which the Court may consider

11

allowing the lienholder(s) to respond prior to final disposition by the

12

Court.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

s/ Jeffrey P. Thennisch
Jeffrey P. Thennisch (P51499)
Attorney for Plaintiff
George Clinton
Dobrusin Thennisch, PC
29 West Lawrence Street, Suite 210
Pontiac, MI 48342
[phone]/[phone] (Fax)
[e-mail]

s/Allen B.Grodsky(with consent)
Allen B. Grodsky (SBN 111064)
Attorney for Defendants
Will Adams p/k/a will.i.am et al.
Grodsky & Olecki LLP
2001 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 210
Santa Monica, CA 90403
[phone]/ [phone] (Fax)
[e-mail]

May 31, 2012

May 31, 2012

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

s/ Linda M. Burrow (with consent)
Linda M. Burrow
Attorney for Defendant
UMG Recordings, Inc.
Caldwell Leslie and Proctor PC
1000 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90017
[phone]/[phone](Fax)
May 31, 2012
5

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

3
4

I, hereby certify that on May 31, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing

5

paper(s) with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF System which will send

6

notification of such filing to all counsel of record.

7
8
9

/s/Jeffrey P. Thennisch
Jeffrey P. Thennisch, Attorney for Plaintiff
George Clinton

10
11
12
13
14
15

Jeffrey P. Thennisch (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Dobrusin & Thennisch PC
29 W. Lawrence Street, Suite 210
Pontiac, Michigan
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

16
17

Attorneys for Plaintiff

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6