A Truly Electric Car Company v. Stronach et al

Filing 29

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPEAL BEFORE THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, Case stayed.. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 2/15/2012. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Bryan K. Anderson (SBN 170666)
[e-mail]
Aaron R. Bleharski (SBN 240703)
[e-mail]
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1001 Page Mill Road., Building 1
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys For Defendants Frank Stronach,
Belinda Stronach, Donald Walker, Ted
Robertson, Kevin Pavlov, Adam Waldman,
and Magna E-Car Systems L.P.

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

OAKLAND DIVISION

13

A TRULY ELECTRIC CAR COMPANY,

14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK STRONACH, BELINDA
STRONACH, DONALD WALKER, TED
ROBERTSON, KEVIN PAVLOV, ADAM
WALDMAN, MAGNA ELECTRONICS,
INC., MAGNA E-CARS SYSTEMS L.P.,
JANE DOES 1-10 and JOHN DOES 1-10,

Case No. 4:11-cv-6578-YGR
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING
RESOLUTION OF APPEAL BEFORE THE
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT

19
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
Case No. 4:11-CV-6578-SBA

1

WHEREAS, on September 30, 2011, the plaintiff A Truly Electric Car Company ("ATECC")

2

initiated this lawsuit in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, in Case No.

3

CIV-508788; and

4

WHEREAS, on December 21, 2011, defendants Frank Stronach, Belinda Stronach, Don

5

Walker, Ted Robertson, Kevin Pavlov, Adam Waldman, and Magna E-Car Systems L.P.

6

(collectively, "Defendants") filed with this Court a "Notice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C.

7

§§ 1332, 1441 and 1446 (Diversity)" (see Dkt. No. 1); and

8
9

WHEREAS, on December 21, 2011, Defendants simultaneously filed "Defendants' Motion:
(1) To Stay Pending Decision by the Ninth Circuit in a Related Case; (2) In the Alternative, to

10

Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; or (3) to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction – Fed. R. Civ.

11

P. 12(b)(2) and Res Judicata; or (4) to Transfer Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)" (see Dkt. No. 13)

12

(hereinafter, "Motion"); and

13

WHEREAS the parties agree that the instant proceedings should be stayed pending resolution

14

of Durney v. Magna Int'l, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47780 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2011), appeal

15

docketed, No. 11-16402 (9th Cir. Jun. 3, 2011) (the "Ninth Circuit Appeal");

16

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED as follows:

17

1.

18
19

The instant proceedings, and any responses to pending motions or other papers, are
stayed pending resolution of the Ninth Circuit Appeal.

2.

During the stay period, ATECC (including any other parties or individuals owned or

20

controlled by, or affiliated with ATECC) will not initiate any claims against the

21

Defendants or their past and/or present affiliated corporations, subsidiaries, parents,

22

employees, officers, directors, shareholders, agents, attorneys, assignees, insurers,

23

successors or predecessors-in-interest.

24

3.

Upon a decision in the Ninth Circuit Appeal, ATECC shall have thirty (30) days

25

from the date of such decision to file any motion to remand in this case, and

26

Defendants waive any objection to the timeliness of any argument made by ATECC

27

in any such motion to remand.

28
1
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
Case No. 4:11-CV-6578-SBA

1

4.

2
3

Upon a decision in the Ninth Circuit Appeal, Defendants shall re-notice their
Motion pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-2.

5.

Plaintiff waives any objection to the timeliness of any objections or challenges that

4

the Defendants may assert to the Complaint or action within thirty (30) days from

5

the decision in the Ninth Circuit Appeal, including through amended answer(s),

6

motion(s), or other response to the Complaint or action.

7
8

6.

Each party shall bear their own costs and fees associated with preparing this
stipulation in the instant case.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
Case No. 4:11-CV-6578-SBA

1

SO STIPULATED.

2
3

DATED: January 9, 2012

4
5
6

By: /s/ Edward G. Durney
Edward G. Durney
ATTORNEY AT LAW
11 Rosalita Lane
Millbrae, CA 94030
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

7
Counsel for Plaintiff
A Truly Electric Car Company

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

DATED: January 9, 2012

By: /s/ Bryan K. Anderson
Bryan K. Anderson
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

16

Counsel for Defendants
Frank Stronach, Belinda Stronach, Don
Walker, Ted Robertson, Kevin Pavlov,
Adam Waldman, and Magna E-Car Systems
L.P.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
Pursuant to General Order No. 45(X)(B), I hereby certify that concurrence in the filing of this
document has been obtained from each of the other signatories shown above.

25

/s/ Aaron R. Bleharski
Aaron R. Bleharski

26
27
28
3

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
Case No. 4:11-CV-6578-SBA

1
2
3

ORDER
After considering the stipulation presented to the Court, and good cause therefore
appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated: February 15, 2012
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
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
4

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
Case No. 4:11-CV-6578-SBA