Montz et al v. Nevada Business Corporations, Inc. et al

Filing 44

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 2/6/24 ORDERING that pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, this Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement until perf ormance in full of its terms, including, if necessary, enforcement and entry of the Stipulated Judgment attached thereto as Exhibit C. Plaintiffs shall file a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) immediately upon within seven days of the Court's approval of this Stipulation. (Kastilahn, A)

5

Grant H. Wiltshire, Esq.
CA Bar No. 337390
Damon L. Booth, Esq.
CA Bar No. 326494
HIGH WEST LAW, PC
11025 Pioneer Trail, Suite 101A
Truckee, CA 96161
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

6

Attorneys for Defendants

1
2
3
4

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—SACRAMENTO DIVISION
9
10

Case No.: 2:22-cv-00814-JDP

RICHARD AND LAVERNA MONTZ,
individuals,

STIPULATION TO RETAIN
JURISDICTION UNDER CALIFORNIA
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 664.6
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

11
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

v.
NEVADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS,
INC., a Nevada corporation, ARISTOCRAT
VENTURES, a Nevada corporation,
PROBACK SYSTEMS, INC., a Nevada
corporation, WAYNE WAKEFIELD, an
individual, and DOES 1–25, inclusive,
Defendants.

19
20

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BETWEEN Plaintiffs RICHARD and LAVERNA

21

MONTZ (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants NEVADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS,

22

INC., ARISTOCRAT VENTURES, PROBACK SYSTEMS, INC., and WAYNE WAKEFIELD

23

(collectively, “Defendants”) (Plaintiffs and Defendants are collectively referred to herein as the

24

“parties”) as follows:

25

1. Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants on January 26, 2022, in the Superior

26

Court of California, County of Placer, for among other causes of actions, fraudulent

27

transfer and breach of fiduciary duties.

28
STIP. FOR CRT. TO RETAIN
JURISDICTION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
HIGH WEST LAW, PC

1

2. On March 24, 2022, Defendants removed this case from the Superior Court of

2

California, County of Placer, to the United States District Court for the District of

3

Nevada on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

4

3. On May 16, 2022, the court transferred this case from the United State District Court

5

for District of Nevada to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

6

California, pursuant to stipulation by the parties.

7
8

4. Plaintiffs

and

Defendants

entered

into

a

settlement

agreement

dated

January 19, 2024__ to resolve this action (the “Settlement Agreement”).

9

5. California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 expressly provides that, “[i]f parties to

10

pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of

11

the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court,

12

upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested

13

by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement

14

until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”

15

6. Pursuant to the court’s analysis in Renaissance Ribbons, Inc. v. Hadley Pollet, LLC,

16

No. 2:07-CV-1271-JAM-DAD, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102942, at 2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5,

17

2008) “California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 applies in this Court” for following

18

reasons:

19
20

a. No Federal Rule of Civil Procedure directly conflicts with Cal. Code Civ. Proc.
§ 664.6;

21

b. “Where a federal court is exercising jurisdiction solely because of the diversity

22

of citizenship of the parties, the outcome of the litigation in the federal court

23

should be substantially the same, so far as legal rules determine the outcome of

24

a litigation, as it would be tried in a State court.” Gasperini v. Ctr. for

25

Humanities, 518 U.S. 415, 427 (1996). “Accordingly, to ensure that the

26

outcome of the litigation would be the same as if it has been brought in state

27

court, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6 should apply.” Renaissance Ribbons, Inc.,

28

2008 U.S. LEXIS 102942 at 4; and
STIP. FOR CRT. TO RETAIN
JURISDICTION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

2
HIGH WEST LAW, PC

c. There is no “strong federal interest in preventing the enforcement of settlement

1

agreements.” Id. at 5.

2

7. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that:

3
4

a. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement

5

Agreement until performance in full of its terms, including, if necessary,

6

enforcement and entry of the stipulated judgment attached thereto as Exhibit C

7

(the “Stipulated Judgment”) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

8

§ 664.6; and

9

b. Plaintiffs shall file a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice pursuant to

10

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) immediately upon the Court’s

11

approval of this Stipulation.
It is understood that Defendants expressly waive notice of entry of this Stipulation and also

12
13

expressly waive any right to appeal or seek review of this Stipulation by a higher court.

14

It is further understood that the parties to this Stipulation have agreed that the Court shall

15

retain jurisdiction pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 over the enforcement of

16

their Settlement Agreement until performance in full of its terms, including, if necessary,

17

enforcement of the Stipulated Judgment attached thereto as Exhibit C. This includes the tolling of

18

any applicable statute, rule, or court order affecting timely prosecution of this action.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

19
20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
STIP. FOR CRT. TO RETAIN
JURISDICTION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

3
HIGH WEST LAW, PC

1

Dated: January ____, 2024

NEW POINT LAW GROUP, LLP

2
By: ____________________________________
Daniel Griffin, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
RICHARD and LAVERNA MONTZ

3
4
5
6
7

Dated: January ____, 2024

HIGH WEST LAW, PC

8
By: ____________________________________
Grant Wiltshire, Esq.
Attorney for Defendants
NEVADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS,
INC.; ARISTOCRAT VENTURES;
PROBACK SYSTEMS, INC.; and WAYNE
WAKEFIELD

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP. FOR CRT. TO RETAIN
JURISDICTION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

4
HIGH WEST LAW, PC

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

The Court, having read and considered the Stipulation filed by the parties, and good cause

2
3

appearing:

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6, this Court shall retain

6

jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement until performance in full of its terms,

7

including, if necessary, enforcement and entry of the Stipulated Judgment attached thereto as

8

Exhibit C.
2.

9

Plaintiffs shall file a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal

10

Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) immediately upon within seven days of the Court’s

11

approval of this Stipulation.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

February 6, 2024
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP. FOR CRT. TO RETAIN
JURISDICTION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER

5
HIGH WEST LAW, PC