Ribeiro-Sunglow LLC, et al v. Umpqua Bank
Filing
23
STIPULATION and ORDER Dismissing Complaint and Counterclaim With Prejudice signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/6/17. CASE CLOSED. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
JAMES J. BANKS (SBN 119525)
W. DAVID CORRICK (SBN 171827)
BANKS & WATSON
901 F Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95814-0733
Tel: (916) 325-1000
Fax: (916) 325-1004
Email: jbanks@bw-firm.com
Email: dcorrick@bw-firm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants,
RIBEIRO-SUNGLOW, LLC, a Nevada
Limited Liability Company; and
RIBEIRO CALIFORNIA II, LLC, a
Nevada Limited Liability Company
DOUGLAS H. KRAFT (SBN 155127)
JOHN H. McCARDLE (SBN 155115)
KRAFT OPICH, LLP
7509 Madison Avenue, Suite 111
Citrus Heights, CA 95610
Tel: (916) 880-3040
Fax: (916) 880-3045
Email: dkraft@kraftopich.com
Email: jmccardle@kraftopich.com
Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Claimant,
UMPQUA BANK, an Oregon state chartered bank
15
16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
19
RIBEIRO-SUNGLOW, LLC, a Nevada Limited
Liability Company; and RIBEIRO CALIFORNIA
II, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiffs,
20
21
22
Case No.: 2:15-cv-01853-JAM-AC
STIPULATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
WITH PREJUDICE; ORDER
[FRCP 41 (a) and (c)]
v.
UMPQUA BANK, a Bank Organized Under the
Laws of the State of Oregon,
23
THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ
Defendant.
24
25
Plaintiffs RIBEIRO-SUNGLOW, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, and RIBEIRO
26
CALIFORNIA II, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company (together, “Plaintiffs”), and defendant
27
UMPQUA BANK (“Defendant” and “Counterclaimant”), by and through their respective undersigned
28
{00084323.DOCX; 1}
1
STIPULATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM WITH PREJUDICE;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1
counsel, respectfully submit the following Stipulation for Order Dismissing Complaint and Counterclaim
2
With Prejudice, pursuant to FRCP 41(a) and (b).
3
4
5
6
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this action to recover from Defendant title to two
parcels of real property situated in El Dorado Hills, California (the “Subject Parcels”);
WHEREAS, Defendant filed a Counterclaim against Plaintiffs and RP2, LLC, a Nevada Limited
Liability Company (“RP2”) to, inter alia, quiet title in Subject Parcels;
7
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, Defendant and RP2 (the “Parties”) have entered into that certain
8
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of All Claims dated September 14, 2017 (the “Settlement
9
Agreement”), under the terms of which, Defendant would, subject to certain conditions (the “Settlement
10
Conditions”), deed title to the Subject Parcels to Plaintiffs, and the Parties would release any claims they
11
have against each other pursuant to the Complaint or Cross-Complaint, all as more fully set forth in the
12
Settlement Agreement; and
13
WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement provided that within ten (10) days after satisfaction of the
14
Settlement Conditions, the Parties and their attorneys shall file mutual stipulations to dismiss the
15
Complaint and Counterclaim, pursuant to FRCP 41; and
16
WHEREAS, the Settlement Conditions were satisfied on September 29, 2017, the Parties now
17
seek an Order dismissing the Complaint and Counterclaim, each with prejudice.
18
Dated: October 5, 2017
19
BANKS & WATSON
By: /s/ James J. Banks
JAMES J. BANKS,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs RIBEIRO-SUNGLOW,
LLC, and RIBEIRO CALIFORNIA II, LLC
20
21
Dated: October 5, 2017
KRAFT OPICH, LLP
22
By: /s/ Douglas H. Kraft [as authorized on 10/05/17]
DOUGLAS H. KRAFT,
Attorneys for Defendant UMPQUA BANK
23
24
ORDER
25
GOOD CAUSE appearing therefore, it is SO ORDERED.
26
27
DATED: 10/6/2017
/s/ John A. Mendez____________
JOHN A. MENDEZ
United States District Court Judge
28
{00084323.DOCX; 1}
2
STIPULATION FOR ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM WITH PREJUDICE;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
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?