LumaSense Technologies v. Neoptix, Inc.

Filing 36

ORDER DISMISSING CASE PURSUANT TO STIPULATION. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 21. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2009)

Download PDF
Case3:09-cv-02023-WHA Document35 Filed12/21/09 Page1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Gregory L. Lippetz (State Bar No. 154228) Jane L. Froyd (State Bar No. 220776) JONES DAY 1755 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, California 94303 Telephone: (650) 739-3939 Facsimile: (650) 739-3900 glippetz@jonesday.com jfroyd@jonesday.com Attorneys for Plaintiff LUMASENSE TECHNOLOGIES Michael I. Katz (State Bar No. 181728) THOMAS WHITELAW & TYLER LLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 230 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 679-6400 Facsimile: (949) 679-6405 mkatz@twtlaw.com W. Paul Schuck (State Bar No. 203717) Gabriel Z. Reynoso (State Bar No. 234027) THOMAS WHITELAW & TYLER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1350 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 820-0400 Facsimile: (415) 820-0405 pschuck@twtlaw.com greynoso@twtlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant NEOPTIX, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LUMASENSE TECHNOLOGIES, Plaintiff, v. NEOPTIX, INC., Defendant. Case No. C-09-02023-WHA STIPULATED REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STIPULATED DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS Case No. C-09-02023-WHA Case3:09-cv-02023-WHA Document35 Filed12/21/09 Page2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 SVI-75946 Plaintiff LumaSense Technologies ("LumaSense") and Defendant Neoptix, Inc. ("Neoptix") inform the court that they have reached agreement on the terms of dismissal of the claims in the above-titled action and hereby submit this Stipulation of Dismissal. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties hereby stipulate to dismiss all claims in this action asserted by LumaSense against Neoptix with prejudice. The parties stipulate that each party will bear its own costs and attorneys' fees relating to the dismissed claims. SO STIPULATED. Dated: December 21, 2009 /s/ Gregory L. Lippetz Gregory L. Lippetz JONES DAY Counsel for Plaintiff LUMASENSE TECHNOLOGIES In accordance with General Order No. 45, Section X(B), the above signatory attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatory below. Dated: December 21, 2009 /s/ Michael I. Katz Michael I. Katz THOMAS WHITELAW & TAYLOR LLP Counsel for Defendant NEOPTIX, INC. 28 -1STIPULATED DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS Case No. C-09-02023-WHA Case3:09-cv-02023-WHA Document35 Filed12/21/09 Page3 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. THE CLERK SHALL CLOSE THE FILE. UNIT ED ISTRIC ES D TC AT T RT U O DATED:____________________ Dated: December 21, 2009. N F D IS T IC T O R -2- STIPULATED DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS Case No. C-09-02023-WHA A By:_____________________________________ ED O ALSUP THE HONORABLE WILLIAM ORDER IT IS S United State District Judge Northern District of California lsup illiam A WILLIAM ALSUP Judge W UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ER S C LI FO R NIA NO RT H

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?