APEX Advance Holdings Limited v. Rivkin et al

Filing 30

ORDER GRANTING 29 Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice filed by APEX Advance Holdings Limited. The Clerk shall close this file. ***ALL Deadlines terminated. Motions terminated: 17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed by APEX Advance Holdings Limited, 7 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Efim Rivkin, Vladimir Rivkin, 28 Second MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Efim Rivkin, Vladimir Rivkin. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/14/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2011)

Download PDF
S ER 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff APEX ADVANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED vila A H 6 rd J . D a R NIA d wa J u d ge E FO RT 5 NO 4 DERED SO OR IT IS LI 3 UNIT ED 2 JOHN DINAPOLI (SBN 84365) STEVEN J. SIBLEY (SBN 152365) DINAPOLI & SIBLEY Ten Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250 San Jose, CA 95113-2271 Telephone: (408) 999-0900 Facsimile: (408) 999-0191 e-mail: jfd@dslaw.net RT U O 1 S DISTRICT TE C TA N C O F 7/14/2011 D IS T IC T R 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 (San Jose Division) 10 11 APEX ADVANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED, a corporation, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Case No. CV-11-02051 EJD NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff, v. [Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)] VLADIMIR RIVKIN, EFIM RIVKIN, IGOR JONATAN SCHMIDT, REGINA SCHMIDT, AND ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF’S TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD ON PLAINTIFF’S TITLE, 20 21 22 Defendants. TO DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 23 24 25 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that plaintiff APEX ADVANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED, a corporation, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a), and without stipulating to or accepting 26 defendants’ challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction in this case, hereby voluntarily dismiss this 27 case without prejudice. The Clerk shall close this file. 28 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL C:\Cases\Apex\Dismiss.Fed.wpd Case No. 11-CV-02051-EJD 1 Dated: July 13, 2011 DINAPOLI & SIBLEY 2 3 By: /s/ 4 JOHN DINAPOLI, Attorneys for Plaintiff APEX ADVANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED, a corporation 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL C:\Cases\Apex\Dismiss.Fed.wpd 2 Case No. 11-CV-02051-EJD 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I am a citizen of the United States. My business address is the law offices DiNapoli & Sibley, Ten Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250, San Jose, California 95113-2271, and my phone number is (408) 999-0900. I am employed in the County of Santa Clara where this service occurred. I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within cause. I am readily familiar with the normal business practice of the law offices of DiNapoli & Sibley for the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the U. S. Postal Service, and that practice is that correspondence is deposited with the U. S. Postal Service the same day as the day of collection in the ordinary course of business. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 On the date set forth below, following the ordinary business practice, I served the following document(s): NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE by enclosing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope and placing it for collection and service that same day in the ordinary course of business. __X__(By e-mail) I caused such document(s) to be served by e-mail to defendants’ counsel Carlos G. Martinez and R. Jeremie Ginelli at the following addresses: cmartin@isonlaw.com and rjg@carlsonlawgroup.com. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct and that I executed this Proof of Service in the City of San Jose, California, on July 13, 2011 /s/ JOHN DINAPOLI 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL C:\Cases\Apex\Dismiss.Fed.wpd 3 Case No. 11-CV-02051-EJD

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?