San Francisco Residence Club, Inc et al v. Amado et al

Filing 256

SECOND AMENDED JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 8/4/2014. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 Northern District of California United States District Court 11 SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENCE CLUB, et al., 12 Case No.: 09-2054 RS (JSC) AMENDED JUDGMENT Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 15 HENRY A. AMADO, JR., et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court having granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement by Order dated June 11, 2012, having entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on the same date, and having granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to amend the judgment on August 27, 2012, enters judgment in favor of Plaintiff Donahue O’Shea LLC and against Defendants Henry A. Amado, Jr., Edward S. Broda, Gregory Fish and G.D. Fish Associates, Inc. jointly and severally, in the total amount of $41,666.00. The Court also enters judgment in the additional amount of $1,250.00 in favor of Plaintiff Donahue O’Shea LLC and against Defendants Henry // // // 1 2 A. Amado, Jr. and Edward S. Broda, jointly and severally. In addition to the above amount, the Court having granted Plaintiff’s motion to further 3 amend the judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants Edward S. Broda, Aspire 4 Investments, Inc. and Aspire Real Estate, Inc., by Order filed August 4, 2014, enters judgment in 5 favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants Edward S. Broda, Aspire Investments, Inc. and Aspire 6 Real Estate, Inc., jointly and severally, in the amount of $150,000.00. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 4, 2014 _________________________________ JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 Northern District of California United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?