Deerpoint Group, Inc. v. Agrigenix, LLC et al

Filing 306

STIPULATION and ORDER Granting Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant Agrigenix LLC signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 09/03/2024. (Flores, E)

1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
GARY K. BRUCKER, JR., SB# 238644
2
E-Mail: [e-mail]
550 West C Street, Suite 1700
3 San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: 619.233.8627
5 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
LAWRENCE R. LAPORTE, SB# 130003
6
E-Mail: [e-mail]
THOMAS L. DYER (Pro Hac Vice)
7
E-mail: [e-mail]
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
8 Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: [phone]
9 Facsimile: 213.250.7900
10 Attorneys for Defendants
11 Agrigenix, LLC and Sean Mahoney
and Counterclaimant Agrigenix, LLC
12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION

15 DEERPOINT GROUP, INC., an Illinois
16 corporation,
Plaintiff,

17
18

vs.

19

AGRIGENIX, LLC, a Delaware limited
20 liability company; SEAN MAHONEY, a
California individual; and CUSTOM AG
21 FORMULATORS, INC., a California
corporation,
22
Defendants.
23

Case No. 1:18-cv-00536-JLT-BAM
STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER
GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AGRIGENIX
LLC; ORDER
Magistrate: Hon. Barbara A. McAuliffe
Trial Date:

None Set

24
AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIMS
25
26
27
28
144928033.1

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT
AGRIGENIX LLC

1

Plaintiff Deerpoint Group, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and defendants Agrigenix LLC and Sean

2 Mahoney (“Defendants”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as
3 follows:
4

Whereas: Plaintiff and defendant Agrigenix, by counsel for Agrigenix’s bankruptcy

5 trustee, submitted a stipulated entry of judgment on all claims against Agrigenix, except for the
6 sixth cause of action for intentional interference with prospective business advantage, on July 14,
7 2023. (Docket No. 253.)
8

Whereas: The Court entered default against defendant Agrigenix on all claims, except for

9 the sixth cause of action for intentional interference with prospective business advantage, on July
10 28, 2023. (Docket Nos. 259, 260.)
11

Whereas: Agrigenix, by its counsel of record, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP,

12 filed a motion for summary judgment along with Mr. Mahoney, which among other things, sought
13 to dismiss the sixth cause of action for intentional interference with prospective business
14 advantage against both Defendants on September 11, 2023. (Docket No. 265.)
15

Whereas: the Court granted summary judgment as to the sixth cause of action for

16 intentional interference with prospective business advantage against Mr. Mahoney, but did not
17 enter summary judgment in favor of Agrigenix on August 23, 2024, reasoning that:
18
19
20
21
22
23

Defendant Mahoney’s motion is labeled “Defendants Agrigenix and Sean
Mahoney’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Their Motion
for Summary Judgment,” and Defendant Mahoney elsewhere refers to both
himself and Defendant Agrigenix, LLC (“Defendant Agrigenix” or “Agrigenix”)
in his briefing. (Doc. 265-1.) However, as default was entered against Defendant
Agrigenix, the Court considers the cross-motions for summary judgment as
regarding Defendant Mahoney only. (Docs. 259, 260.).
(Docket No. 297.)
Whereas: Defendants contend that the Court committed “clear error” in concluding that

24 the default applied to all causes of action, when the default in fact did not, and that summary
25 judgment should have been entered in favor of Agrigenix on the sixth cause of action for
26 intentional interference with prospective business advantage.
27

Whereas: Defendants met and conferred with Plaintiff in advance of filing a motion for

28 reconsideration on the basis of “clear error.”
144928033.1

1

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT
AGRIGENIX LLC

1

Whereas: Plaintiff responded:

2

6

Relative to your letter (copy attached), we do not believe that the Court
committed clear error based on the reason it stated in the subject order as well as
the objection we raised in opposition to the subject motion concerning your firm
to continuing to purport to represent Agrigenix. Nonetheless, we are willing to
agree to the Court granting summary judgment in favor of Agrigenix on the
interference claim so long as any such stipulation fully preserves Deerpoint’s
right to appeal that decision on all available grounds (including again the
[in]ability of your firm to continue to purport to represent Agrigenix in this case).

7

Wherefore: good cause exists to grant summary judgment in favor of Agrigenix on the

3
4
5

8 sixth cause of action for intentional interference with prospective business advantage, provided
9 that this stipulation does not prejudice any appellate rights that Plaintiff has preserved.
10 DATED: August 29, 2024

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

11
12

By:
GARY K. BRUCKER, JR.
Attorneys for Defendants Agrigenix, LLC and
Sean Mahoney

13
14
15

DATED: August 29, 2024

STRUCTURE LAW GROUP, LLP

16
17
By:

18
19

/s/ Jon Michaelson
JON MICHAELSON
Attorneys for Plaintiff Deerpoint, Inc.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
144928033.1

2

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT
AGRIGENIX LLC

1

FEDERAL COURT PROOF OF SERVICE
Deerpoint Group, Inc. v. Agrigenix, LLC, et al.
Case No. 1:18-cv-00536-AWI-BAM

2

3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
4

At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to the action. My
business address is 550 West C Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101. I am employed in the
5 office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.
6

On August 29, 2024, I served the following document(s): STIPULATION FOR AN
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AGRIGIENIX
7 LLC
8

The documents were served by the following means:

9 

(BY COURT’S CM/ECF SYSTEM) Pursuant to Local Rule, I electronically filed the
documents with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification
of that filing to the persons listed above.

10
11

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

12
Executed on August 29, 2024, at San Diego, California.
13
14

/s/ Brandi Sloane
Brandi Sloane

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
144928033.1

1

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT
AGRIGENIX LLC

1
2

ORDER
On August 29, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation for an order granting summary judgment

3 in favor of Defendant Agrigenix as to Plaintiff’s Sixth Claim for Relief regarding Intentional
4 Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage. (Doc. 303.) Given the parties’ clarification
5 of this issue and good cause appearing, Defendant Agrigenix’s motion for summary judgment as
6 to Plaintiff’s Sixth Claim for Relief for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic
7 Advantage is GRANTED. No part of this order should be construed as a waiver of Plaintiff’s
8 right to appeal any and all preserved appellate issues.
9
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

September 3, 2024

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
144928033.1

2

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT
AGRIGENIX LLC