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)
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?