Garman Group, LLC et al v. University Pipeline, Inc. et al
Filing
56
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a). Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 4/25/12. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2012)
1 AKAY SULL LLP
DOUGLAS N. AKAY, STATE BAR #131011
2 HARJIT K. SULL, STATE BAR #238458
333 Bush Street, Suite 2250
3 San Francisco, California 94104
(415) 764-1999 (telephone)
4 (415) 764-1994 (facsimile)
dnakay@akaylaw.com
5
Attorneys for
6 GARMAN GROUP, LLC and RYAN GARMAN
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
AKAY SULL LLP
333 BUSH STREET, SUITE 2250
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TELEPHONE: (415) 764-1999
8
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11 GARMAN GROUP, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company, and RYAN GARMAN, an
12 individual,
13
14
Plaintiff,
No.11-CV-03733-JCS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)
v.
15 UNIVERSITY PIPELINE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, TOM UNGER, an individual, and
16 DOES I through X, inclusive, and ROE entities
I through X, inclusive,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 7-12, Plaintiffs Garman Group, LLC and Ryan
21 Graman (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Tom Unger (“Defendant”), through their respective counsel,
22 respectfully submit this Stipulation and Proposed Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Without
23 Prejudice.
24
25
RECITALS
1.
Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on December 10, 2010, in the District Court of
26 Nevada, against University Pipeline, Inc., and Tom Unger for breach of contract, breach of
27 covenants of good faith and fair dealing, tortious breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
28 breach of fiduciary, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
K:\AS\GARM1101\PLD\Federal\Mot_Dismiss_Stip_Order_02.wpd
Case No. 11-CV-03733-JCS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE , PAGE 1
1
2.
On February 2, 2011, Defendant Unger filed a Notice of Removal of Action, under
2 28 USC §§1332, 1441, 1446, from Nevada District Court to the United States District Court for
3 Nevada.
4
3.
On February 9, 2011, Defendant Unger filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
5 Personal Jurisdiction, or in the Alterative, Transfer Venue, which the Court granted in part on July
6 22, 2011, and issued an order transferring venue to the Northern District of California.
7
4.
On January 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice
8 pursuant to Rule 41(a), to dismiss the action against Defendant Unger. Concurrently, Plaintiffs
9 filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as to University Pipeline, Inc.
10
5.
On March 30, 2012, the Court conditionally granted the Motion to Dismiss Without
AKAY SULL LLP
333 BUSH STREET, SUITE 2250
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TELEPHONE: (415) 764-1999
11 Prejudice, subject to payment of reasonable attorneys fees incurred by Defendant Unger in
12 connection with the Motion to Transfer Venue only.
13
6.
On April 6, 2012, Defendant’s counsel filed a declaration requesting attorneys fees
14 in the amount of $14,339.20, for the amount claimed Defendant Unger incurred in connection with
15 the Motion to Transfer Venue only.
16
7.
On April 20, 2012, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a declaration seeking to tax portions of
17 the attorneys fees claimed to have been incurred by Defendant Unger, to wit, Plaintiffs requested
18 the Court reduce Defendant’s attorneys fees to an amount no greater than $10,813.
19
20
STIPULATION
Based on the foregoing Recitals, and subject to this Court’s approval, Plaintiffs and
21 Defendant agree and stipulate as follows:
22
1.
For purposes of granting the Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice, subject to
23 payment of reasonable attorneys fees incurred by Defendant in filing the Motion to Transfer
24 Venue only, the parties stipulate the reasonable attorneys fees incurred by Defendant Unger is
25 $11,250.
26
2.
The attorneys fees of $11,250 shall be paid within ten (10) days of the date of entry
27 of this Order in a check made payable to “Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP”.
28
3.
The instant action shall be dismissed without prejudice upon delivery of said
K:\AS\GARM1101\PLD\Federal\Mot_Dismiss_Stip_Order_02.wpd
Case No. 11-CV-03733-JCS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE , PAGE 2
1 attorneys fees to Defendant’s counsel, Daniel A. Croley, at Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier
2 LLP at 180 Sansome Street, 17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104
3
IT SO STIPULATED.
4 Dated: April 24, 2012
FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER
LLP
5
6
By:
7
/s/ Daniel A. Croley
DANIEL A. CROLEY
Attorneys for Defendant,
Tom Unger
8
9
Dated: April 24, 2012
AKAY SULL LLP
10
11
13
/s/ Douglas N. Akay
DOUGLAS N. AKAY
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Garman Group, LLC and Ryan Garman
14
15
ORDER
16 PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING STIPULATION, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
17
1.
Within ten (10) days of entry of this Order, Plaintiffs Garman Group, LLC and
18 Ryan Garman, deliver $11,250 for attorney's fees to Defendant Tom Unger's counsel, Daniel A.
19 Croley at the law offices of Futterman Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP.
20
2.
If not advised otherwise by Defendant Unger’s counsel that payment has not been
21 received, after the passage of twenty (20) days of the entry of this Order, the Court shall dismiss
By:___________________________________
. Spero
Hon. Joseph JudgeSpero
C. Joseph C
United States Magistrate Judge
RT
ER
27
A
H
26
FO
NO
25
25 Dated: April ______, 2012
LI
24
R NIA
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T
RT
U
O
23
S
22 the instant action without prejudice.
UNIT
ED
AKAY SULL LLP
333 BUSH STREET, SUITE 2250
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TELEPHONE: (415) 764-1999
By:
12
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
28
K:\AS\GARM1101\PLD\Federal\Mot_Dismiss_Stip_Order_02.wpd
Case No. 11-CV-03733-JCS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE , PAGE 3
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?