Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, Inc.

Filing 139

ORDER GRANTING re 138 Stipulation Seeking Dismissal of Brilliant's State Law Claims Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 8/16/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Thomas W. Lathram (State Bar No. 59639)
[e-mail]
Arthur J. Behiel (State Bar No. 172165)
[e-mail]
Steve P. Hassid (State Bar No. 219913)
[e-mail]
SILICON EDGE LAW GROUP LLP
6601 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 245
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Counterdefendant
and Counterclaimant
BRILLIANT INSTRUMENTS, INC.

9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
OAKLAND DIVISION
12
13

BRILLIANT INSTRUMENTS, INC.

16

[PROPOSED] ORDER AND
STIPULATION SEEKING DISMISSAL OF
BRILLIANT’S STATE LAW CLAIMS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff,

14
15

Civil No. C09-05517 CW (JCS)

v.
GUIDETECH, INC., and
RONEN SIGURA, an individual,

17
Defendants.
18
19

and Related Counterclaims

20
21
22

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Plaintiff, Counterdefendant and Counterclaimant Brilliant Instruments, Inc. (“Brilliant”),

23

Defendant, Counterclaimant and Counterdefendant GuideTech, LLC (“GuideTech”) and

24

Defendant Ronen Sigura (“Sigura”), hereby submit their [Proposed] Order and Stipulation

25

Seeking Dismissal of Brilliant’s State Law Claims Without Prejudice.

26

On June 29, 2011, the parties filed a Stipulation Re Consolidation of Business Tort Claims

27

and Statements of the Parties Re Related Matters, (Dkt. 133). In that stipulation, the parties

28

agreed to consolidate their State Law Claims in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1STIPULATION TO DISMISS BRILLIANT'S STATE LAW CLAIMS
WO PREJUDICE - FINAL

1

Case No. C09-05517 CW (JCS)

1

10-CV-187147 (the “State Court Action”), if this Court grants Brilliant’s Motion for Summary

2

Judgment of Noninfringement. The parties further agreed to “promptly . . . take all steps

3

necessary to accomplish the filing by Brilliant of a cross-complaint in the State Court Action . . .”

4

(Dkt. 133 at 4:23-25.)

5

On August 11, 2011, the Court granted Brilliant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of

6

Noninfringement and denied as Moot GuideTech’s Motion for Summary Adjudication on the

7

Issue of Assignor Estoppel. (Dkt. 137, the “Order.”) The Court ordered the parties, within three

8

days of the date of the Order, to file a stipulation seeking the dismissal without prejudice of

9

Brilliant’s remaining state law claims.

10

Accordingly, pursuant to the Court’s Order granting Brilliant’s Motion for Summary

11

Judgment of Noninfringement, and further pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties

12

submit this stipulation seeking dismissal, without prejudice, of Count VIII through Count X of

13

Brilliant’s First Amended Complaint, (Dkt. 35), filed June 3, 2010. The parties seek an order from

14

the Court approving this stipulation, and an order directing the parties to take all steps necessary to

15

accomplish the filing by Brilliant of a cross-complaint in the State Court Action.

16
17

DATED: August 15, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

18
19

SILICON EDGE LAW GROUP LLP

LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL J. RICHERT

20

By:

/s/ Thomas W. Lathram
Thomas W. Lathram
Attorneys for Brilliant Instruments, Inc.

/s/ Daniel J. Richert
Daniel J. Richert
Attorneys for GuideTech LLC and Ronen Sigura

21

By:

22
23

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

24

1.

Count VIII (Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage),

25

Count IX (Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations), and Count X

26

(Unfair Competition – Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code ¶¶ 17200, et seq.) of Brilliant’s First

27

Amended Complaint, dated May 18, 2010, and filed June 3, 2010, in this action,

28

(Dkt. 35), are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
STIPULATION TO DISMISS BRILLIANT'S STATE LAW CLAIMS
WO PREJUDICE - FINAL

2

Case No. C09-05517 CW (JCS)

1

2.

2

The parties are hereby ORDERED to take all steps necessary to accomplish the
filing by Brilliant of a cross-complaint in the State Court Action.

3
4

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

5
6

Dated:

8/16/2011
Claudia Wilken
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO DISMISS BRILLIANT'S STATE LAW CLAIMS
WO PREJUDICE - FINAL

2

Case No. C09-05517 CW (JCS)