Trabakoolas et al v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 93

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE TERMS OF DISMISSAL OF TAIZHOU AND WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, Motions terminated: 72 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [FRCP 12(b)(2)] filed by Watts Plumbin g Technologies (Taizho) Co., Ltd., 91 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 72 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [FRCP 12(b)(2)] filed by Watts Plumbing Technologies (Taizho) Co., Ltd., Watts Plumbing Technologies (Taizho) Co., Ltd. terminated. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/9/12. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

DAVID S. MacCUISH (SBN 054024)
TODD BENOFF (SBN 192983)
LINDSAY G. CARLSON (SBN 235999)
ALSTON + BIRD LLP
333 South Hope Street, Sixteenth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendant
WATTS PLUMBING TECHNOLOGIES
(TAIZHOU) CO., LTD.

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

OAKLAND COURTHOUSE

13
14
15

JASON TRABAKOOLAS and SHEILA
STETSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

v.
WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
WATTS REGULATOR CO., WATTS
ANDERSON-BARROWS METAL CORP.,
WATTS PLUMBING TECHNOLOGIES
(TAIZHO) CO., LTD., SAVARD PLUMING
COMPANY, WOLVERINE BRASS, INC.,
AND JOHN DOES 1-100.

Case No.: 4:12-cv-01172-YGR
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE TERMS OF DISMISSAL
OF TAIZHOU AND WITHDRAWAL
OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK
OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Date: September 25, 2012
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Courtroom: Oakland Courthouse
Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
LEGAL02/33682125v1

CASE NO. C12-01172 YGR

1
2
3
4

WHEREAS, Defendant Watts Plumbing Technologies (Taizhou) Co., Ltd.
(“Taizhou”) filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Court held a hearing on September 25, 2012 on said motion and
ordered additional briefing on the issue of specific jurisdiction on October 2, 2012; and

5

WHEREAS, the parties seek to resolve this dispute.

6

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed that:

7

1.

8
9
10
11
12
13

Taizhou will, and hereby does, withdraw its motion to dismiss for lack of

personal jurisdiction without prejudice.
2.

Plaintiffs will, and hereby do, dismiss Taizhou as a defendant without

prejudice.
3.

The Parties agree that any statute of limitations with respect to Taizhou will be

tolled until 30 days after the conclusion of this litigation with respect to the other defendants.
4.

Watts Regulator will respond to Plaintiffs’ further document requests and

14

interrogatories directed to Watts Regulator by searching for and producing responsive

15

documents concerning Taizhou without objecting on the grounds that the documents and

16

information are not in the “possession, custody or control” of Watts Regulator. Taizhou

17

documents produced by Watts Regulator shall be deemed authentic documents of Taizhou.

18
19
20

5.

Defendants will reserve the right to raise all other objections to Plaintiffs’

written discovery with respect to Taizhou.
6.

The Parties agree that any issues with respect to Plaintiffs’ deposition

21

discovery of Taizhou will be deferred and discussed in the future in the event Plaintiffs seek

22

to take depositions of any Taizhou employees.

23

7.

In the absence of a separate agreement between the parties, Plaintiffs reserve

24

the right to request the Court to allow such a deposition. However, in connection with any

25

such request for a deposition, Taizhou shall be considered a non-party, and the Court shall

26

not consider the request as if Taizhou were a party to this action. This Stipulation shall not

27

be construed as an agreement that a deposition of Taizhou or any Taizhou employee may be

28

taken as if Taizhou were a party.
-1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
LEGAL02/33682125v1

CASE NO. C12-01172 YGR

1
2

8.

Plaintiffs shall not contend that this Stipulation or any conduct pursuant to it

3

constitutes a waiver of Taizhou’s objections to personal jurisdiction in this action, and this

4

Stipulation and any conduct pursuant to it shall not be construed as such a waiver.

5
6

Dated: October 8, 2012

ALSTON + BIRD LLP

7
David S. MacCuish
Attorneys for WATTS PLUMBING TECHNOLOGIES
(TAIZHOU) CO., LTD.

8
9
10

Dated: October 8, 2012

11

SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT &
BENDESKYK, P.C.

12
13

Simon Bahne Paris

14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15
16
17
18

ORDER

19

Pursuant to the above Stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. This Order terminates Dkt.

20

Nos. 72 & 91. Defendant Watts Plumbing Technologies (Taizhou) Co., Ltd. is hereby

21

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to the Stipulation.

22
23

DATED: October 9, 2012

24
25

_______________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

26
27
28
-2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
LEGAL02/33682125v1

CASE NO. C12-01172 YGR