Franklin Family Partnership L P v. Benjamin J Franklin et al

Filing 53

ORDER RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh, re Stipulation to Dismiss Case 51 (See document for further details.). Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (sbou)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Murray M. Sinclair (SBN 150389)
[e-mail]
MURRAY M. SINCLAIR & ASSOCIATES
1880 Century Park East, Suite 615
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

JS-6

Attorneys for Defendants
Matthew Franklin, Special Administrator
for the Estate of Benjamin J. Franklin; and
Ben Franklin Investment Company, a
California General Partnership

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

FRANKLIN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP,
L.P., a California Limited Partnership,

ORDER RE DISMISSAL OF
ACTION

Plaintiff,

14
15

Case No. CV12-08060-PJW

vs.

[F.R.C.P. 41 (a) (1) (A)]

16
17
18
19
20
21

MATTHEW FRANKLIN, Special
Administrator for the Estate of Benjamin
J. Franklin; BEN FRANKLIN
INVESTMENT COMPANY, a California
general partnership; ESTATE OF
CHANG HO BAE; and DOES 1 to 10,

Magistrate Judge: Patrick J. Walsh
CR: 790 (Roybal Courthouse)
Complaint filed: 09/18/12
Trial date: 02/05/18

Defendants.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Franklin Family Partnership, L.P., a California Limited

2

Partnership (“Franklin Family Partnership”), on the one hand, and Defendants

3

Matthew Franklin, Special Administrator for the Estate of Benjamin J. Franklin; and

4

Ben Franklin Investment Company, a California General Partnership (hereinafter,

5

collectively, “BFIC”), on the other hand, have settled all disputes between them; and

6

WHEREAS, on November 30, 2017, Franklin Family Partnership and BFIC,

7

through their respective attorneys of record, filed a Stipulation For Dismissal (Doc #

8

51), pursuant to Rule 41 (a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, whereby

9

said remaining parties stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice of all claims that they

10

have or could have asserted against each other in this litigation, with each party to

11

bear its own costs,

12
13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed in its entirety.
DATED: December 4, 2017

14
15
16

By:
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
PATRICK J. WALSH

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION