Surfacesupplied, Inc v. Kirby Morgan Dive Systems, Inc

Filing 107

ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(2). Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 21, 2014. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Daniel M. Cislo, Esq., No. 125,378 dan@cislo.com David B. Sandelands, Esq., No. 198,252 dsandelands@cislo.com Mark D. Nielsen, Esq., No. 210,023 mnielsen@cislo.com CISLO & THOMAS LLP 1333 2nd Street, Suite 500 Santa Monica, California 90401-4110 Telephone: (310) 451-0647 Telefax: (310) 394-4477 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant, KIRBY MORGAN DIVE SYSTEMS, INC. SUITE 500 1333 2 nd Street SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 Telephone: (310) 451-0647 Facsimile: (310) 394-4477 Attorneys at Law CISLO & THOMAS LLP 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SURFACE SUPPLIED, INC., a California ) ) corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) vs. ) KIRBY MORGAN DIVE SYSTEMS, INC.,) ) a California Corporation, ) ) Defendant. ) ) _______________________________ ) KIRBY MORGAN DIVE SYSTEMS, INC.,) ) a California Corporation, ) ) ) Counterclaimant, ) ) vs. ) ) SURFACE SUPPLIED, INC., a California ) corporation; Heliox TECHNOLOGIES, ) INC., a California corporation; and JASON ) VAN DER SCHYFF, an individual, and ) DOES 1-9, ) ) Counter-Defendants. ) ) ) CASE NO. CV 13-0575 MMC [Hon. Maxine M. Chesney] [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(2) 1 [Proposed] Order of Dismissal Case No. C 13-0575 MMC 1 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Surface Supplied, Inc. (“Surface Supplied”), Counter- (“Kirby Morgan”) (collectively “the Parties”) have jointly moved this Court for an order of 6 dismissal pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The Parties request that the Court 7 incorporate the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement into the dismissal order by reference 8 SUITE 500 1333 2 nd Street SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 Telephone: (310) 451-0647 Facsimile: (310) 394-4477 (“Van der Schyff”) and Defendant and Counterclaimant Kirby Morgan Dive Systems, Inc. 5 Attorneys at Law Defendant Heliox Technologies, Inc. (“Heliox”), Counter-Defendant Jason Van der Schyff 4 CISLO & THOMAS LLP 3 and that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement under the authority of Kokkonen 9 v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 381-382, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). 10 The Court finds that the Parties’ settlement agreement is complete; includes a statement that the 11 Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement; and, has been executed by the Parties. 12 13 14 Proof having been made to the satisfaction of the Court that the Motion should be granted, and good cause appearing therefore, 15 16 THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that: 17 18 (1) 19 20 entirety, with prejudice; (2) 21 22 23 Pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), this action is dismissed, in its (3) filed March 20, 2014, as The terms of the Parties’ settlement agreement, appended to this Order as to the Declaration of Daniel M. Cislo Exhibit A, are incorporated herein by reference; and ^ The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 March 21 Date: ______________, 2014 Hon. Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge 28 2 [Proposed] Order of Dismissal Case No. C 13-0575 MMC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Respectfully submitted, CISLO & THOMAS, LLP By: /s/Daniel M. Cislo Daniel M. Cislo David B. Sandelands Mark D. Nielsen Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant, KIRBY MORGAN DIVE SYSTEMS, INC. SUITE 500 1333 2 nd Street SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 Telephone: (310) 451-0647 Facsimile: (310) 394-4477 Attorneys at Law CISLO & THOMAS LLP 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 [Proposed] Order of Dismissal Case No. C 13-0575 MMC

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?