General Electric Capital Corporation et al v. Ten Forward Dining, Inc. et al

Filing 102

STIPULATION and ORDER 99 signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 10/31/2011 DISMISSING case WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defendants County of Sacramento, County of Nevada, and County of Shasta. (Krueger, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

J. David Bournazian (State Bar No.: 186194)
KUTAK ROCK LLP
Suite 1100
18201 Von Karman
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL
CORPORATION, CEF FUNDING II, L.L.C.
and CEF FUNDING V, LLC

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SACRAMENTO

10
11
12

GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL
CORPORATION; CEF FUNDING II,
L.L.C. and CEF FUNDING V, LLC,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

v.
TEN FORWARD DINING, INC.;
DELIGHTFUL DINING, INC.; TGIA
RESTAURANTS, INC.; KOBRA
RESTAURANT PROPERTIES, L.L.C.;
ABOLGHASSEM ALIZADEH; THE
MECHANICS BANK; EQUITY
LENDERS, LLC; APEX PROPERTY
ADVISORS INC.; KEY REAL ESTATE
EQUITY CAPITAL, INC.; COUNTY
OF SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC WORKS
ADMINISTRATION; STATE OF
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS; CITY OF
ELK GROVE; CITY OF REDDING;
CITY OF GRASS VALLEY; COUNTY
OF PLACER; COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO; COUNTY OF
SHASTA; COUNTY OF NEVADA, and
DOES 1 – 100, INCLUSIVE,

27
28
K UTAK R OCK LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
IR VI NE

Case No. 2:09-cv-03296-FCD-EFB
Assigned to Judge:
Hon. Frank C. Damrell, Jr.
Assigned to Magistrate:
Hon. Edmund F. Brennan
STIPULATION REGARDING
PRIORITY AND DISMISSAL
(WITHOUT PREJUDICE)
AMONG PLAINTIFFS AND
DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO, COUNTY OF
NEVADA AND COUNTY OF
SHASTA; ORDER
Complaint Filed on: Nov. 25, 2009

Defendants.
4812-7912-2442.1

2:09-cv-03296-FCD-EFB

STIPULATION REGARDING PRIORITY AND DISMISSAL (WITHOUT PREJUDICE);
ORDER

1

Plaintiffs General Electric Capital Corporation (“GECC”); CEF Funding II,

2

L.L.C. (“CEF II”) and CEF Funding V, LLC (“CEF V,” and collectively with CEF

3

II and GECC, “Plaintiffs”), on the one hand, and Defendants County of Sacramento

4

Department of Public Works and County of Sacramento (“Sacramento County”),

5

County of Nevada (“Nevada County”) and County of Shasta (“Shasta County,” and

6

collectively with Sacramento County and Nevada County, “Defendants”;

7

Defendants and Plaintiffs, collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their

8

respective attorneys of record, HERBY ENTER INTO THE FOLLOWING

9

STIPULATION REGARDING PRIORITY AND DISMISSAL (WITHOUT

10

PREJUDICE) AMONG PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF

11

SACRAMENTO, COUNTY OF NEVADA AND COUNTY OF SHASTA

12

(“Stipulation”) AND AGREE UPON THE FOLLOWING:

13

1.

On November 25, 2009, Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit by filing a

14

Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief (“Complaint”) against various

15

defendants, including Defendants. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that

16

Defendants may have or asserts an interest in the real and personal properties at

17

issue in this lawsuit.

18

2.

Plaintiffs have released their mortgage liens on and security interests

19

in the 19373 Kobra Properties (as defined in the Complaint) and, accordingly, have

20

agreed to dismiss, without prejudice, Sacramento County Department of Public

21

Works and Sacramento County from this lawsuit.

22

3.

In exchange for the foregoing dismissal, without prejudice,

23

Sacramento County has agreed to a waiver of all fees and costs against Plaintiffs

24

and to not seek any action relating thereto.

25
26

4.

Plaintiffs, Nevada County and Shasta County wish to stipulate as to

their respective liens on the 11726 Kobra Property and the 11794 Kobra Property

27
28
K UTAK R OCK LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
IR VI NE

4812-7912-2442.1

2:09-cv-03296-FCD-EFB

STIPULATION REGARDING PRIORITY AND DISMISSAL (WITHOUT PREJUDICE);
ORDER

1

(each as defined in the Complaint), as follows:
(a)

2

the lien of Shasta County on the 11726 Kobra Property for real

3

property taxes and assessments with respect to the 11726 Kobra Property is

4

senior in priority to CEF V’s mortgage lien on the 11726 Kobra Property

5

under the 11726 Kobra Deed of Trust; and
(b)

6

the lien of Nevada County on the 11794 Kobra Property for real

7

property taxes and assessments with respect to the 11794 Kobra Property is

8

senior in priority to CEF V’s mortgage lien on the 11794 Kobra Property

9

under the 11794 Kobra Deed of Trust.

10

5.

In exchange for the foregoing dismissal, without prejudice, Shasta

11

County and Nevada County have agreed to a waiver of all fees and costs against

12

Plaintiffs and to not seek any action relating thereto.

13

6.

It is further understood and agreed that this Stipulation may be

14

executed in separate counterparts, including facsimile signatures, each of which

15

shall be considered an original but all of which shall constitute one agreement.

16

7.

The parties hereto further agree to execute any further and additional

17

documents, and undertake such further acts, as shall be reasonable, convenient,

18

necessary or desirable to carry out the provisions of this Stipulation and the parties

19

further agree to cooperate with each other to effectuate the intent of this agreement.

20

8.

All prior and contemporaneous conversations, negotiations or

21

agreements, representations and covenants concerning settlement are superseded by

22

this Stipulation. This is a fully integrated document.

23

9.

The parties enter into the foregoing stipulation with the understanding

24

and intention to be bound by the obligations set forth in this agreement and warrant

25

and represent that the individuals executing this agreement have the full right,

26

power and authority to settle and compromise the matters referenced herein.

27
-32:09-cv-03296-FCD-EFB
STIPULATION REGARDING PRIORITY AND DISMISSAL (WITHOUT PREJUDICE);
ORDER

4812-7912-2442.1

28
K UTAK R OCK LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
IR VI NE

1

10.

The parties acknowledge that this Stipulation has been reviewed by

2

their respective counsel and it has been approved as to form. They further agree

3

that this agreement is to be construed and interpreted without regard to the identity

4

of the party drafting this Stipulation.

5

11.

If any term or provision of this Stipulation, or the application thereof,

6

to any persons, parties or circumstances shall, to any extent, be held invalid or

7

unenforceable, the remainder of this Stipulation or application of such term or

8

provision to persons, parties or circumstances other than those as to which it is held

9

invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each such term or

10

provision of this Stipulation shall be valid and enforced to the fullest extent

11

permitted by law.

12

12.

The rights and obligations of the parties pursuant to this Stipulation

13

shall inure to and be binding upon each of the parties hereto and each of their

14

respective successors and assigns.

15
16

SO STIPULATED AND AGREED:
Dated: September 2 , 2011

KUTAK ROCK LLP

17
18

By: /s/ J. David Bournazian
J. David Bournazian
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL
CORPORATION, CEF FUNDING II,
L.L.C. and CEF FUNDING V, LLC

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

-42:09-cv-03296-FCD-EFB
STIPULATION REGARDING PRIORITY AND DISMISSAL (WITHOUT PREJUDICE);
ORDER

4812-7912-2442.1

28
K UTAK R OCK LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
IR VI NE

1
2

Dated: October 12 , 2011

ROBERT A. RYAN, JR., County Counsel
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

3
4

By: /s/ Diane E. McElhern
Diane E. McElhern, Deputy
Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
and COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

5
6
7
8
9

(JR) October
Dated: September 28 , 2011

10

RUBIN E. CRUSE, JR., County Counsel
REDDING, CALIFORNIA

11

By: /s/ James R. Ross
James R. Ross,
Assistant County Counsel
Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF SHASTA

12
13
14
15

Dated: September 7 , 2011

16

MICHAEL JAMISON, County Counsel
NEVADA CITY, CALIFORNIA

17

By: /s/ Michael Jamison
Michael Jamison, County Counsel
Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF NEVADA

18
19
20
21

ORDER

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 31, 2011

25
26

_______________________________________
FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
-52:09-cv-03296-FCD-EFB
STIPULATION REGARDING PRIORITY AND DISMISSAL (WITHOUT PREJUDICE);
ORDER

4812-7912-2442.1

28
K UTAK R OCK LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
IR VI NE