Damar Petroleum, Inc. v. ConocoPhillips Company

Filing 43

STIPULATION 107 to Sever MDL Case and JUDGMENT, ***Civil Case Terminated. Case No. C-09-02853-RMW shall remain open. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 9/29/11. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP
ADAM FRIEDENBERG, Bar No. 205778
JONATHAN A. ELDREDGE, Bar No. 238559
One Walnut Creek Center
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
ConocoPhillips Company

12

BLEAU FOX, A P.L.C.
THOMAS P. BLEAU, Bar No. 152945
GENNADY L. LEBEDEV, Of Counsel, Bar No. 179945
3575 Cahuenga Boulevard West, Suite 580
Los Angeles, CA 90068
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9
10
11

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE DIVISION

17
18
19

In re: ConocoPhillips Co. Service Station
Rent Contract Litigation

20
21

) Case No. M:09-cv-02040-RMW
)
) JOINT STIPULATION TO SEVER MDL
) CASE AND JUDGMENT
)
)

WHEREAS, on April 13, 2011, the Court granted ConocoPhillips’ Motion to Dismiss the

22

Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 98), dismissing Plaintiffs’ First, Second and Third

23

Claims without leave to amend, but granting twenty days leave to amend as to other claims.

24

WHEREAS, on April 20, 2011, Plaintiff, NRU INC. filed an amended complaint,

25

asserting a Fourth Claim for Relief for Violations of California Business and Professions Code

26

§21140, et seq. and a Fifth Claim for Relief for violations of California Business and Professions

27

Code §17200 (Docket No. 100).

28
-1STIPULATON TO SEVER AND ENTER JUDGMENT

1
2
3

WHEREAS, on May 23, 2011, ConocoPhillips filed its Answer to NRU’s amended
complaint (Docket No. 102).
WHEREAS, the MDL plaintiffs intend to appeal the Court’s Order dismissing their MDL

4

claims. Consequently, the parties believe that the MDL claims that were dismissed pursuant to

5

the Court’s April 13, 2011 Order (Docket No. 98) should be severed from NRU’s individual

6

claims (Docket No. 100) and that Judgment be entered on those MDL claims, which are distinct

7

from NRU’s individual claims.

8
9
10
11

WHEREAS, ConocoPhillips intends to bring a motion for attorneys fees and costs
incurred with regard to the dismissed MDL claims.
IT IS NOW THEREFORE STIPULATED by and between all of the parties to this action,
by and through their respective counsel of record that:

12

1. The MDL claims may be severed from NRU’s pending claims;

13

2. Judgment in ConocoPhillips’ favor may be entered on the dismissed MDL claims;

14

3. ConocoPhillips’ last day by which to bring a motion for attorneys fees and costs

15

incurred in connection with the dismissed MDL claims shall be 30 days after entry of judgment

16

on the MDL claims;

17

4. The Plaintiffs reserve the right to oppose ConocoPhillips’ intended motion for

18

attorneys fees and costs on any and all grounds that may apply, except that Plaintiffs agree not to

19

oppose such motion for attorneys fees and costs on the grounds that ConocoPhillips must wait

20

until final judgment of NRU’s remaining claims.

21

Dated: September 16, 2011
GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP

22

By

23
24
25
26

/s/ Adam Friedenberg
Attorneys for Defendant
ConocoPhillips Company

Dated: September 16, 2011
BLEAU FOX, A P.L.C.
By

/s/ Thomas P. Bleau
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

27
28
-2STIPULATON TO SEVER AND ENTER JUDGMENT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE DIVISION

10
11
12
13
14

In re: ConocoPhillips Co. Service Station
Rent Contract Litigation

) Case No. M:09-cv-02040-RMW
)
) [] JUDGMENT
)
)
)

By Order dated April 13, 2011, the Court granted Defendant, ConocoPhillips Company’s

15

(“ConocoPhillips”) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 98),

16

dismissing Plaintiffs’ First, Second and Third Claims (the “MDL Claims”) without leave to

17

amend, but granting twenty days leave to amend as to other claims. On April 20, 2011, Plaintiff,

18

NRU INC. filed an amended complaint, asserting a Fourth Claim for Relief for Violations of

19

California Business and Professions Code §21140, et seq. and a Fifth Claim for Relief for

20

violations of California Business and Professions Code §17200 on behalf of itself only (Docket

21

No. 100) (“NRU Claims”), which claims are distinct from the “MDL” claims that have been

22

dismissed pursuant to the Court’s April 13, 2011 Order (Docket No. 98).

23
24
25
26
27
28

Therefore, pursuant to Stipulation by and between all parties to this action and for good
cause, the Court hereby ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that:
1. the NRU Claims are hereby severed from the MDL Claims that had been
dismissed pursuant to the Court’s April 13, 2011 Order;
2. Plaintiffs shall take nothing by reason of their MDL Claims against
ConocoPhillips and Judgment is hereby entered on such MDL Claims;
-1JUDGMENT

1

3. ConocoPhillips shall have thirty (30) days from entry of this Judgment to file

2

a motion for attorneys fees and costs incurred in connection with the

3

dismissed MDL Claims.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: ________________, 2011

By:
The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
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
-2JUDGMENT