iSmile Dental Products, Inc. v. Smile Dental Supply, Inc.
Filing
33
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 6/25/2020 DISMISSING this action with prejudice. The court will maintain jurisdiction over the parties for the limited purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement giving rise to this dismissal. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)
1
Josh H. Escovedo, State Bar No. 284506
2
Law Corporation
3
4
5
6
WEINTRAUB TOBIN CHEDIAK COLEMAN GRODIN
400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: 916.558.6000
Facsimile:
916.446.1611
Email: jescovedo@weintraub.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff iSmile Dental Products, Inc.
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
iSMILE DENTAL PRODUCTS, INC, a
California corporation,
v.
13
14
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
12
law corporation
weintraub tobin chediak coleman grodin
9
SMILE DENTAL SUPPLY, INC., a corporation
of unknown jurisdiction; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive,
16
Defendants.
17
Case No. 2:16-cv-01055-TLN-GGH
ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION OF
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND REQUEST
FOR RETENTION OF JURISDICTION TO
ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
18
The Court, having reviewed and considered the parties’ Stipulation of Voluntary
19
Dismissal and Request for Retention of Jurisdiction to Enforce the Settlement Agreement,
20
hereby dismisses this action with prejudice. The Court will maintain jurisdiction over the
21
parties for the limited purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement giving rise to this
22
dismissal. See K.C. v. Torlakson, 762 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir. 2014); Porter v. Spencer, 2018 U.S.
23
Dist. Lexis 136600, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2018); Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354, 361 (2d Cir.
24
2015).
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
Dated: June 25, 2020
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
28
1
Order re Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal
Case No. 2:16-cv-01055-TLN-GGH
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?