International Medcom, Inc. v. S.E. International, Inc.

Filing 81

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 80 STIPULATED MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Carlton J. Willey (CA Bar No. 269120) Daniel E. Dersham (CA Bar No. 284918) HARRIS BRICKEN LLP 560 Mission St. Ste. 1300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 200-0648 Fax: (206) 224-5659 Carlton@HarrisBricken.com Attorney for Plaintiff International Medcom, Inc. John F. Triggs (admitted pro hac vice) Ryan D. Levy (admitted pro hac vice) Scott Douglass (admitted pro hac vice) PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. 1600 Division Street, Suite 500 Nashville, TN 37203 T: 615-242-2400/F: 615-242-2221 rdl@iplawgroup.com Attorneys for Defendant S.E. International, Inc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 INTERNATIONAL MEDCOM, INC., a California Corporation; Plaintiff, vs. S.E. INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Tennessee Corporation; Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:15-cv-03839-HSG JUDGE: HON. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 24 25 Plaintiff International Medcom, Inc. (“IM”) and Defendant S.E. International, Inc. (“SEI”) 26 jointly have stipulated to the dismissal of this case. The Court, being of the opinion that said 27 motion should be GRANTED, hereby ORDERS that the case be dismissed with prejudice. Each 28 4 HARRIS BRICKEN SAN FRANCISCO STIPULATED MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 4:15-cv-03839-HSG 1 party shall bear it own costs, expenses, and attorney fees. y ts a ys’ 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED D. 4 Dated April 6, 2017 d: 2 5 6 _______ __________ ___________ _ HAYW WOOD S. GIL LLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE D 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 HARRIS BRI ICKEN SAN FRANC CISCO STIPUL LATED MOTION FOR DISM MISSAL WITH PREJUDICE H E 4:15-cv v-03839-HSG

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?