Precision Concrete Cutting, Inc. v. Rifley et al

Filing 76

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/15/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2011)

Precision Concrete Cutting, Inc. v. Rifley et al

Doc. 76

*E-Filed 3/15/11* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Counsel for Plaintiff Precision Concrete Cutting, Inc. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The parties have filed a Joint Motion For Dismissal. Based on the reasons provided in 24 25 26 27 28 their motion the Court finds as follows: 1. The Parties entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement And General Release (the "Settlement Agreement), a copy of which is part of this Court's record in this Action as Document No. 66, filed under seal.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Philip J. Wang (SBN 218349) Law Office of Philip J. Wang 160 Bovet Rd. Ste 310 San Mateo, CA 94402 Tel: [phone] [e-mail] Ramon L. Pizarro (Pro Hac Vice, Colorado SBN 21400) Law Office of Ramon L. Pizarro 3515 South Tamarac Drive, Ste. 200 Denver, CO 80237 Tel: [phone] [e-mail]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION PRECISION CONCRETE CUTTING, Inc., a CASE NO. C10-00310 RS Utah Corporation, Plaintiff, v. BRYAN PATRICK RIFLEY dba CHANNEL ISLANDS SAWING, CO., an individual; BRYAN PATRICK RIFLEY JR. dba CHANNEL ISLANDS SIDEWALK GRINDING and CHANNEL ISLANDS SAWING, an individual, and BPR, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants. [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1

Case No. C10-00310 RS
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3

2. The parties stipulated and the Court finds that the following terms of the Settlement Agreement as being germane to this Order of Dismissal, and hereby further adopts the following findings:

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 their counterclaims against Plaintiff, with prejudice; 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. 27 28 purposes, including enforcement of any of the terms thereof at the request of any This Court hereby retains jurisdiction over the Settlement Agreement for all IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. That the parties' request for dismissal of this case with prejudice be subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement (Document No. 66, filed under seal) is GRANTED; Agreement. d. That the parties have stipulated that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California shall retain jurisdiction over the Settlement c. The Settlement Agreement requires future compliance with certain terms of the Settlement Agreement; and, b. That pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff stipulates to a dismissal against Defendants, with prejudice, and Defendants' stipulate to a dismissal of a. That the terms of the Settlement Agreement are the basis for the request of dismissal of this Action;

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

2

Case No. C10-00310 RS

1 2 3

party and resolution of any disputes that may arise relating in any way to, or arising from the implementation of the Settlement Agreement or implementation of this Order.

4 5 6 7 BY THE COURT: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

IT IS SO ORDERED, 3/15/11 Dated: ___________________

____________________________________ Richard Seeborg United States District Judge

3

Case No. C10-00310 RS