Hardline Design, LLC v. Edge International, LLC et al

Filing 34

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 33 FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/21/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2013)

1 COMAR LAW
D. Inder Comar (SBN 243732)
2
[e-mail]
901 Mission Street, Suite 105
3 San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: +1.415.513.0445
5 Attorney for Plaintiff
HARDLINE DESIGN LLC
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12
13

HARDLINE DESIGN LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.

14

EDGE INTERNATIONAL, LLC;
15 and B8 CONCEPT LTD.,
Defendants.
16

CASE NO.: 3:12-cv-04001-RS
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Judge: The Honorable Richard Seeborg
Trial Date: N/A
Action Filed: July 30, 2012

17
18

AND ALL RELATED CROSS
19 CLAIMS
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

COMAR LAW

1
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER; CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04001-RS

1
2

STIPULATION
Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant HARDLINE DESIGN LLC

3 (“Hardline”)
and
Defendant
and
Counterclaim
Plaintiff
EDGE
4 INTERNATIONAL, LLC (“Edge”), hereby submit this joint stipulation and
5 proposed order to dismiss this case without prejudice.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

WHEREAS, the parties jointly stipulated to and this Court ordered on
November 5, 2012 a 45-day stay;
WHEREAS, the parties jointly stipulated to and this Court ordered on
December 18, 2012 a second period of a 45-day stay;
WHEREAS, the parties jointly stipulated to and this Court ordered on
January 31, 2013 a third period of a 45-day stay;
WHEREAS, the parties plan to file an arbitration in a manner consistent

14 with the first stipulation granted by the Court, or else settle the case;
15

THEREFORE Hardline and Edge stipulate that this action shall be dismissed

16 in its entirety, without prejudice, to permit the filing of an arbitration consistent
17 with the first stipulation granted by the Court, or to settle the case.
18

ORDER

19

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

20
21 Dated: ____________________________
3/21/13
22
23

______________________________
The Honorable Richard Seeborg
United State District Court Judge

24
25
26
27
28

COMAR LAW

2
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER; CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04001-RS

1
2 Dated: March 20, 2013
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Respectfully submitted,
By

/s/ Inder Comar
D. Inder Comar
COMAR LAW
901 Mission Street, Ste. 105
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff / Counterclaim
Defendant
HARDLINE DESIGN LLC

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

By _____/s/ Joshua Kirsch________________
Joshua Kirsch
GIBSON ROBB & LINDH LLP
201 Mission Street, Ste. 2700
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant / Counterclaim
Plaintiff
EDGE INTERNATIONAL, LLC

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

COMAR LAW

2
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER; CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04001-RS

1
2

DECLARATION OF CONSENT
Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1 regarding signatures, I attest under penalty of

3 perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from all
4 counsel for all parties.
5
6
7

/s/ Inder Comar
D. Inder Comar

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

COMAR LAW

4
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER; CASE NO. 3:12-CV-04001-RS