Gucci America, Inc. v. Golden Harvest Investment and Trading Inc et al

Filing 57

ORDER re 54 Certificate of Counsel re Alternatively to Continue Certification Deadline, filed by Gucci America, Inc. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 KENNETH E. KELLER (SBN 71450) kkeller@ksrh.com ANNE E. KEARNS (SBN 183336) akearns@ksrh.com KELLER, SLOAN, ROMAN & HOLLAND LLP 555 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 249-8330 Facsimile: (415) 249-8333 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff GUCCI AMERICA, INC. 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 GUCCI AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) GOLDEN HARVEST INVESTMENT AND ) TRADING INC., a California corporation, TNL ) a/k/a T & L T SHIRT, an entity of unknown ) make-up, CYNTHIA CHAN KING, an ) individual, d/b/a CHANS ART & GIFTS d/b/a ) CHAN & ART & GIFTS d/b/a CHAN’S ART ) & GIFTS d/b/a CHAN ART GIFTS, DOE 1 ) doing business at 615 GRANT AVENUE, an ) entity of unknown make-up, and DOES 1-10, ) ) Defendant(s). ) ) ) Case Number: C 13-1197-CRB CERTIFICATION THAT THE AGREED CONSIDERATION FOR SETTLEMENT HAS NOT BEEN DELIVERED IN FULL; REQUEST TO RESTORE CASE TO CALENDAR, OR ALTERNATIVELY, TO CONTINUE CERTIFICATION DEADLINE; ORDER 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 CERTIFICATION THAT THE AGREED CONSIDERATION FOR SETTLEMENT HAS NOT BEEN DELIVERED IN FULL; REQUEST TO RESTORE CASE TO CALENDAR, OR ALTERNATIVELY, TO CONTINUE CERTIFICATION DEADLINE; [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO.: C13-1197 CRB Pursuant to this Court’s Order of Dismissal, dated October 31, 2013 [ECF 52], Plaintiff 1 2 GUCCI AMERICA, INC. (“Plaintiff”) hereby certifies that the agreed upon consideration has not 3 been delivered by Defendant TNL a/k/a T & L T SHIRT and Defendant GOLDEN HARVEST 4 INVESTMENT AND TRADING INC. Plaintiff therefore requests that this case be restored to 5 calendar as against those defendants. Alternatively, Plaintiff asks this Court to continue the deadline 6 for certification 30 days to give the parties time to complete payment of the settlement. Specifically, Defendant TNL a/k/a T & L T SHIRT has not agreed to or signed a settlement 7 8 agreement and has not delivered any payment pursuant to the terms of that agreement. Plaintiff and Defendant GOLDEN HARVEST INVESTMENT AND TRADING INC. have 9 10 agreed to the terms of a settlement agreement, but have not yet executed the agreement or exchanged 11 consideration pursuant to the terms of that agreement. However, the parties expect the settlement 12 agreement to be signed and the consideration therefor to be exchanged within the next 14 days. 13 Plaintiff and Defendant CYNTHIA CHAN KING an individual, d/b/a CHANS ART & 14 GIFTS d/b/a CHAN & ART & GIFTS d/b/a CHAN’S ART & GIFTS d/b/a CHAN ART GIFTS 15 have signed a settlement agreement and exchanged the required consideration. 16 17 KELLER, SLOAN, ROMAN & HOLLAND LLP DATED: November 29, 2013 18 By: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 /S/ ANNE E. KEARNS Attorneys for Plaintiff GUCCI AMERICA, INC. /// /// /// /// 26 27 28 2 CERTIFICATION THAT THE AGREED CONSIDERATION FOR SETTLEMENT HAS NOT BEEN DELIVERED IN FULL; REQUEST TO RESTORE CASE TO CALENDAR, OR ALTERNATIVELY, TO CONTINUE CERTIFICATION DEADLINE; [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO.: C13-1197 CRB ORDER 1 52] to thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Dated: Dec. 17, 2013 NO 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE . Breyer harles R Judge C RT 9 FO 7 DERED SO OR IT IS THE HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER R NIA 6 UNIT ED IT IS SO ORDERED. S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O 5 S 4 H ER LI 3 The Court hereby continues the date for certification set forth in its Order of Dismissal [ECF 10 11 A 2 N F D IS T IC T O R C 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 CERTIFICATION THAT THE AGREED CONSIDERATION FOR SETTLEMENT HAS NOT BEEN DELIVERED IN FULL; REQUEST TO RESTORE CASE TO CALENDAR, OR ALTERNATIVELY, TO CONTINUE CERTIFICATION DEADLINE; [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO.: C13-1197 CRB

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?