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)

Download PDF
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?