Celestial International Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Kross Precision Inc. et al

Filing 64

JUDGMENT AS TO KROSS PRECISION, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION ONLY by Judge John A. Kronstadt. The Court hereby enters final judgment for the Plaintiff and against Defendant Kross Precision Inc., a Delaware corporation in accordance with the terms of the Settlement agreement Dkt. 47-1 and the Stipulated Judgement Dkt. 47-2. Judgment is entered for the principal sum of $167,000.00, plus $1,500.00 as liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees, and interest. This judgment shall become final for all purposes upon entry of judgment, and Plaintiff and Defendant have waived via stipulation any right to appeal or seek review of this judgment by a higher court. (jp)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CELESTA INTERNATIONAL Case No.: 2:17-cv-02252-JAK-SSx ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, a Taiwanese corporation. JUDGMENT AS TO KROSS PRECISION, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION ONLY Plaintiff, vs. JS-6: Defendant Kross Precision, Inc., KROSS PRECISION INC., a Delaware a Delaware Corporation Only Corporation; LESLIE DOTSON, a California resident; ROB STEVEN WILLIAMS, a California resident, Defendants. 1 The Complaint in this action was filed on March 22, 2017. Dkt. 1. On 2 November 29, 2017, all deadlines in the matter were stayed at the request of the 3 parties so that they could finalize a settlement agreement. Dkt. 35. On April 11, 4 2018, the parties stipulated to dismiss the action with prejudice, with the Court 5 retaining jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement, including by entering 6 a stipulated judgment if and only if Defendants failed to fulfill their obligations 7 under the settlement agreement. Dkts. 47, 48. On May 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a 8 notice stating that Defendants have not made certain payments as required by the 9 settlement agreement and requesting that judgment be entered in accordance with 10 the parties’ prior agreement (the “Request”). Dkt. 52. 11 Pursuant to L.R. 7-12 the Defendants have not filed a timely opposition to 12 the Request as ordered by the Court, and failure to file before a deadline is deemed 13 consent to the granting of the requested relief. 14 Although the Request was initially as to judgment against four defendants, 15 one of them is non-diverse and has accordingly been dismissed from this action. 16 Dkt. 63. Two of the remaining three defendants, Leslie Dotson (“Dotson”) and Rob 17 Steven Williams (“Williams”), are involved in bankruptcy proceedings, as a result 18 of which this action is automatically stayed as to them. A separate Order will be 19 entered forthwith as to the stay of this case with respect to Dotson and Williams. 20 As to the remaining defendant, Kross Precision Inc., a Delaware 21 Corporation, based on a review of the stipulation, documents and briefs filed 22 regarding the matter, and the Defendants’ failure to respond; and further finding 23 that the entry of final judgment is supported by good cause, 24 /// 25 /// 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 The Court hereby enters final judgment for the Plaintiff and against 3 Defendant Kross Precision Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Delaware Entity”), 4 in accordance with the terms of the Settlement agreement Dkt. 47-1 and the 5 Stipulated Judgement Dkt. 47-2. 6 7 Judgment is entered for the principal sum of $167,000.00, plus $1,500.00 as liquidated damages and reasonable attorney’s fees, and interest. 8 This judgment shall become final for all purposes upon entry of judgment, 9 and Plaintiff and Defendant have waived via stipulation any right to appeal or seek 10 11 review of this judgment by a higher court. IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dated: August 5, 2019 _______________________________________ JOHN A. KRONSTADT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?