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.)

Download PDF
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?