Graham-Sult et al v. Clainos et al

Filing 182

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 181 Stipulation RELEASING THE BOND AND DISCHARGING INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY FROM LIABILITY (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

THERESE Y. CANNATA (SBN 88032)
KIMBERLY A. ALMAZAN (SBN 288605)
100 Pine Street, Suite 350
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ALEXANDER GRAHAM-SULT and DAVID GRAHAM

6
7
8

ALEXANDER GRAHAM-SULT, an
individual and DAVID GRAHAM, an
individual,

9

Plaintiffs,

10

v.

11

NICHOLAS P. CLAINOS, an individual,
RICHARD L. GREENE, an individual,
LINDA McCALL, an individual, GREENE
RADOVSKY MALONEY SHARE &
HENNIGH LLP, a limited liability
partnership, BILL GRAHAM ARCHIVES
LLC, d/b/a WOLFGANG’S VAULT, a
limited liability company, NORTON LLC,
a limited liability company, and WILLIAM
E SAGAN, an individual,

12
13
14
15

Case No. CV 104877 CW
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RELEASING THE BOND AND
DISCHARGING INTERNATIONAL
FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY
FROM LIABILITY

Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

A.

WHEREAS, INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY (“IFIC”)

issued Supersedeas Bond No. 0604291 in the original amount of $750,000 (the “Bond”),
representing an undertaking given by plaintiffs Alexander Graham-Sult and David Graham
(“Plaintiffs”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) and per the Court’s order dated March 21, 2013, in
order to stay enforcement of the judgment entered in favor of all defendants in this case
(“Judgment”).
B.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed an appeal of the Judgment in the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals.
C.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ appeal was successful as to defendants Nicholas P.

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISCHARGING IFIC

1
2
3
4
5

Clainos ("Clainos"), in part, and Bill Graham Archives, LLC, d/b/a Wolfgang’s Vault, Norton
LLC and William E. Sagan ("the BGA Defendants"), in part. Plaintiffs’ appeal was unsuccessful
as to defendants Richard L. Greene, Linda McCall and Greene Radovsky Maloney Share &
Hennigh LLP (“Greene Defendants”). All defendants are collectively referred to herein as the
“Obligees.”

6
7

D.

“MANDATE.”

8
9
10
11
12

E.

“Demand”), with interest accruing each day until and including March 28, 2014 (the amount
Plaintiffs owe the Greene Defendants, including interest, as of and including March 28, 2014 is
340,436.94). The remainder of the bond ($409,563.06) shall be released to Plaintiffs.
F.

17
18

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, BY AND
AMONG THE PARTIES HERETO THROUGH THEIR UNDERSIGNED ATTORNEYS OF
RECORD, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS COURT, AS FOLLOWS:
1.

19

each (1) approve the amount to be paid to them ($340,436.94), (2) confirm that

21

they consent to the approved amount being paid to them via wire directly into

22

Hinshaw & Culbertson’s client trust account and (3) confirm the wiring/account

23

25
26
27

IFIC will pay the Demand to the Greene Defendants, via their attorney, by wire
transfer as soon as the Greene Defendants provide a letter to IFIC stating that they

20

24

WHEREAS, IFIC has agreed to pay the Demand to the Greene Defendants, via

their attorneys, by wire transfer.

15
16

WHEREAS, on February 28, 2014, the Greene Defendants, by and through their

attorneys of record, demanded that IFIC pay $338,226.90 as full payment of the Judgment (the

13
14

WHEREAS, on February 14, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a

information.
2.

When payment is made by IFIC as committed to by this Stipulation, and the wire
transfer has cleared the bank on which it is drawn, the Greene Defendants shall
have no other or further remedies or rights against IFIC relating to the Bond, or
any portion thereof.

28
-2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISCHARGING IFIC

1

3.

Clainos and the BGA Defendants shall have no other or further remedies or rights

2
3

against IFIC relating to the Bond, or any portion thereof.
4.

This Stipulation may be executed in counterparts, all of which together shall be

4
5

deemed to be one and the same instrument.
5.

Nothing in this Stipulation is intended to waive, abridge, alter, impair or modify

6

any rights that IFIC might possess against Plaintiffs and others for indemnity and

7

other relief.

8
9
10

Dated: May __, 2014

Dated: May __, 2014

CANNATA, CHING & O’TOOLE LLP

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP

By:

By:

11
12
13
14

____________
THERESE CANNATA
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ALEXANDER
GRAHAM-SULT and DAVID
GRAHAM

15

______________________________
CASSIDY E. CHIVERS
Attorneys for Defendants
RICHARD GREENE, LINDA
MCCALL, and GREENE
RADOVSKY MALONEY SHARE &
HENNIGH LLP’S

16
17
ORDER

18
19
20
21
22
23

Good cause therefore appearing from the foregoing Stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: ____________, 2014
______________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
-3STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISCHARGING IFIC

May 13