KFD Enterprises Inc v. City of Eureka

Filing 746

STIPULATED ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 10/20/2014. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

GREBEN & ASSOCIATES
125 E. DE LA GUERRA ST., STE 203
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

Jan A. Greben, SBN 103464
[e-mail]
Brett A. Boon, SBN 283228
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, Third Party Defendant,
Counter Defendant and Counter Claimant KFD Enterprises, Inc.,
a California corporation dba Norman’s Dry Cleaner, and Third-Party
Defendant Kenneth Daer

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

KFD ENTERPRISES, INC., a California
corporation dba Norman’s Dry Cleaner;

13
14

v.

15

CITY OF EUREKA,

16

Case No.: CV-08-4571 MMC

Plaintiffs, KFD ENTERPRISE, INC. AND CITY OF
EUREKA’S STIPULATED, MUTUAL
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULE 41(A) AND (C)
Defendants.

17
18
19
20
RELATED CROSS AND COUNTER-CLAIMS
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiff KFD Enterprise, Inc. and Defendant Kenneth Daer (collectively herein as “KFD”),
and the City of Eureka (the “City”) hereby file this stipulated dismissal, mutual dismissal of claims
without prejudice in the above-referenced matter pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule
41(a) and (c), Northern District of California Local Rules, Rule 7.12, and the terms set forth herein.

27
28
-1–
KFD AND THE CITY’S STIPULATED DISMISSAL AND PROPOSED ORDER

1

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between KFD and the City (collectively herein as

2

the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, having entered into settlement agreements

3

that resolve all causes of action asserted by the Parties against each other in this action:

4
5

WHEREAS, KFD filed its currently operative Fourth Amended Complaint in this matter on
January 21, 2011;

6
7

WHEREAS, the City filed its currently operative Fourth Amended Counter-Claim and
Cross-Claim on December 10, 2010;

8
9

WHEREAS, each party to this action aside from KFD and the City have previously been
dismissed by way of the Court’s finding of good faith settlement or dispositive motion;

10

WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms set forth in the settlement agreement among the Parties

11

and contingent upon the City’s mutual dismissal, KFD hereby dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE

12

its entire action, and all claims encompassed therein, against the City, pursuant to Federal Rules of

13

Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a);

14

WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms set forth in the settlement among the Parties and

15

contingent upon KFD’s mutual dismissal, the City hereby dismisses WITHOUT PREJUDICE its

16

entire action, and all claims encompassed therein, against KFD, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

17

Procedure, Rule 41(a) and (c);

18
19

WHEREAS, the foregoing dismissals are voluntary and shall not operate as an adjudication
on the merits under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41;

20

WHEREAS, each party is to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees; and,

21

WHEREAS, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Parties for purposes of enforcing the

22

settlement agreement reached by and between the Parties;

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-2–
KFD AND THE CITY’S STIPULATED DISMISSAL AND PROPOSED ORDER

1

THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and respectfully request this Court enter an Order

2

dismissing WITHOUT PREJUDICE KFD’s entire action, and all claims encompassed therein

3

against the City, as well as all of the City’s entire action, and all counter-claims encompassed therein

4

against KFD.

5
6
7

Dated: October 17, 2014

8

GREBEN & ASSOCIATES
/s/ Jan Greben
JAN A. GREBEN
BRETT A. BOON
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, Third
Party Defendant, Counter Defendant and
Counter Claimant KFD Enterprises, Inc., a
California corporation dba Norman’s Dry
Cleaner, and Third-Party Defendant Kenneth
Daer

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Dated: October 17, 2014

DAVIDOVITZ & BENNETT LLP
/s/ Charles Bolcom
CHARLES BOLCOM
Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff,
Counterclaimant CITY OF EUREKA

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3–
KFD AND THE CITY’S STIPULATED DISMISSAL AND PROPOSED ORDER

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

[PROPOSED] ORDER
The Parties having stipulated and agreed, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. KFD and the City hereby mutually dismiss all respective claims pled in the above captioned
case against each other WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
2. The foregoing dismissals are voluntary and shall not operate as an adjudication on the merits
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41; and,
3. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Parties for

11

purposes of enforcing the settlement agreement reached by and between the Parties in the above

12

captioned case.

13
14
15

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

10/20
Dated: _________________, 2014

_______________________________
HONORABLE SAMUEL CONTI
United States District Court Judge
Northern District of California

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4–

KFD AND THE CITY’S STIPULATED DISMISSAL AND PROPOSED ORDER