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)
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?