AutoOpt Networks, Inc. v. Karani et al

Filing 106

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 105 Stipulation Dismissing Case.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2018)

Robert E. Camors, Jr. (CA Bar No. 121204)
1 [e-mail]
2 Law Offices of Bob Camors
1501 The Alameda, Suite 210
3 San Jose, California 95126
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: 408-573-5743
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Chris Kao (CA Bar No. 227086)
[e-mail]
Andrew Hamill (CA Bar No. 251156)
[e-mail]
Whitney Miner (CA Bar No. 290825)
[e-mail]
KAO LLP
One Post Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 866-267-0243

12 Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Claimant
Gnanenthiran Jayanthan
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17

AUTOOPT NETWORKS, INC., a California
corporation,

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiff,

18
19

Case No. 4:17-cv-04714-HSG

v.
VIJAY KARANI, an individual; MOBILE
TERRACE, INC., a California corporation;
GNANENTHIRAN JAYANTHAN, an individual,
Defendants.
GNANENTHIRAN JAYANTHAN, an individual,
Counter-Claimant,
v.
AUTOOPT NETWORKS, INC., a California
corporation
Counter-Defendant.

28
Stipulation and Order Dismissing Case
4:17-cv-04714-HSG

1

Complaint Filed: 8/15/17
Counterclaim Filed: 9/25/17

STIPULATION

1
2

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant AUTOOPT NETWORKS, INC. (“Autoopt”) and

3 Defendant and Counter-Claimant, GNANENTHIRAN JAYANTHAN (“Jayanthan”), an
4 individual, by and through their undersigned counsel, agree and stipulate to the following;
5

1. Autoopt’s First Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice by the Court

6

previously pursuant to stipulation of the parties as authorized by Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of

7

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

8

2. Jayanthan’s counterclaim asserts compulsory counter claims that are subject to the

9

court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

10

3. The parties jointly agree that the court should decline to continue to exercise

11

supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim pursuant to 28 USCA section

12

1367(c)(3) and, instead, order the counterclaim dismissed without prejudice so it can

13

be re-filed in the Superior Court of California.

14

4. The parties acknowledge, stipulate and agree that all statutes of limitation applicable to

15

Jayanthan’s counterclaims under California law have been tolled during the pendency

16

of his counterclaim in this court, and will continue to be tolled for a period of 30 days

17

after the dismissal of the counterclaim, pursuant to 28 USCA section 1367(d).

18
19 Dated: December 6, 2018

Law Offices of Paul J. Steiner

20

/s/ Paul J. Steiner
By: ________________________
Paul J. Steiner
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant
AUTOOPT NETWORKS, INC.

21
22
23

Dated: December 6, 2018

Law Offices of Bob Camors

24

/s/ Robert E. Camors, Jr.

25
26
27

By: ________________________
Robert E. Camors, Jr.
Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Claimant
GNANENTHIRAN JAYANTHAN

28 ////
-2-

1

ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE IN FILING

2
3

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer hereby attests that the concurrence in the filing of

4 this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories, which shall serve in lieu of
5 their signatures on this document.
6
7
8

Dated: December 8, 2018

9
10

/s/ Robert E. Camors, Jr.
_________________________________
Robert E. Camors, Jr.
Attorneys for Defendant and CounterClaimant GNANENTHIRAN JAYANTHAN

11
12
ORDER

13
14
15
16
17

Autoopt’s First Amended Complaint has been dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of
the parties as authorized by Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As to
Jayanthan’s counterclaim, based on the stipulation of the parties and finding good cause for the

18
19
20

actions jointly requested therein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

21

1. Although Jayanthan’s counterclaim asserts compulsory counter claims that are subject

22

to the court’s supplemental jurisdiction, the court declines to continue to exercise

23

supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim pursuant to 28 USCA section

24
25
26
27

1367(c)(3) and, instead, the counterclaim is dismissed without prejudice.
2. All statutes of limitation applicable to Jayanthan’s counterclaim under California law
have been tolled during the pendency of the counterclaim, and will continue to be

28
-3-

1
2
3

tolled for a period of 30 days after this dismissal of the counterclaim, pursuant to 28
USCA section 1367(d).
3. As a result, this case is dismissed in its entirety.

4
5
6

Dated: December ____, 2018
13

_____________________________________
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-