Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp

Filing 74

ORDER GRANTING 73 STIPULATION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT POLSINELLI PC WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 10/30/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2017)

LEONARDMEYER LLP
Derek J. Meyer (State Bar No.)
5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]

POLSINELLI LLP
Noel S. Cohen (State Bar No. 219645)
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]

7

LEONARDMEYER LLP
John P. Killacky (admitted pro hac vice)
120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]

POLSINELLI PC
Stacy A. Carpenter (admitted pro hac vice)
1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 2300
Denver, CO 80202
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]

8

Attorneys for Plaintiff Kelly Brezoczky

POLSINELLI PC
Britton L. St. Onge (admitted pro hac vice)
100 S. Fourth Street, Suite 1000
St. Louis, MO 63102
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]

1
2
3
4
5
6

9
10
11

Attorneys for Defendants Domtar
Corporation and Polsinelli PC

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE DIVISION
KELLY BREZOCZKY, an individual,

Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD

Plaintiff,
v.
DOMTAR CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; and POLSINELLI PC, a Missouri
professional corporation,

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
DISMISS DEFENDANT POLSINELLI PC
WITH PREJUDICE
Judge: Hon. Edward J. Davila
Courtroom 4, Fifth Floor

Defendants.
PLAINTIFF

KELLY

BREZOCZKY

(“Plaintiff”)

and

DEFENDANTS

DOMTAR

23

CORPORATION (“Domtar”) and POLSINELLI PC (“Polsinelli”) (Domtar and Polsinelli are

24

collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”), pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, jointly submit this

25

stipulation asking the Court to dismiss Defendant Polsinelli PC with prejudice.

26
27
28

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint against
Defendants (Dkt 14);
-1STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS DEFENDANT POLSINELLI PC WITH PREJUDICE
Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp., et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiff alleged in her First Amended Complaint, among other things, that she had

2

an attorney-client relationship with Polsinelli and asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and

3

professional negligence against Polsinelli;

4
5

WHEREAS, on October 7, 2016, Polsinelli filed its Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint (Dkt 24);

6

WHEREAS, Polsinelli alleges that it was engaged by Domtar, had an attorney-client

7

relationship with Domtar, and denies having an attorney-client relationship with Brezoczky and any

8

and all liability to Brezoczky;

9
10

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Polsinelli have entered into a settlement agreement (“Settlement
Agreement”) mutually resolving all matters between them;

11

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Polsinelli desire to dismiss Polsinelli from this action with prejudice;

12

WHEREAS, the dismissal of Polsinelli shall have no impact on Plaintiff’s claims against

13

Domtar;

14

WHEREAS, to the extent Plaintiff obtains a judgment against Domtar, nothing in the

15

Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff and Polsinelli shall be used as an offset to Plaintiff’s claims

16

against Domtar;

17

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Polsinelli shall pay their own attorney’s fees and costs;

18

WHEREAS, the parties respectfully request that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff

19
20

and Polsinelli to enforce the Settlement Agreement.
STIPULATION

21

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the Parties that:

22

(1) Polsinelli is dismissed with prejudice;

23

(2) The dismissal of Polsinelli shall have no impact on Plaintiff’s claims against Domtar;

24

(3) To the extent Plaintiff obtains a judgment against Domtar, nothing in the Settlement

25

Agreement shall be used as an offset to Plaintiff’s claims against Domtar;

26

(4) Plaintiff and Polsinelli shall pay their own attorney’s fees and costs; and

27

(5) This Court shall retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the Settlement Agreement.

28
-2STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS DEFENDANT POLSINELLI PC WITH PREJUDICE
Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp., et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD

1

Dated: October 27, 2017

2

By: /s/ Derek J. Meyer
Derek J. Meyer
Attorneys for Plaintiff

3
4
5

LEONARDMEYER LLP

Dated: October 27, 2017

POLSINELLI LLP

6
7

By: /s/ Noel S. Cohen (with consent)
Noel S. Cohen
Attorneys for Defendants

8
9
10

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

Dated: October 30, 2017

___________________________________________
Hon. Edward J. Davila
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS DEFENDANT POLSINELLI PC WITH PREJUDICE
Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp., et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD

DECLARATION OF DEREK J. MEYER

1
2

I, Derek J. Meyer, declare and state as follows:

3

1.

I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California, including the

4

United States District Court for the Northern District of California. I am one of the attorneys of record

5

for Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter.

6
7
8

2.

I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called as a witness, I could

and would testify competently as to those facts.
3.

On September 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint against Defendants

9

(Dkt 14). Plaintiff alleged in her First Amended Complaint, among other things, that she had an

10

attorney-client relationship with Polsinelli and asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and

11

professional negligence against Polsinelli.

12

4.

On October 7, 2016, Polsinelli filed its Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

13

(Dkt 24). Polsinelli alleges that it was engaged by Domtar, had an attorney-client relationship with

14

Domtar, and denies having an attorney-client relationship with Brezoczky and any and all liability to

15

Brezoczky.

16
17

5.

Plaintiff and Polsinelli have entered into a settlement agreement (“Settlement

Agreement”) mutually resolving all matters between them.

18

6.

Plaintiff and Polsinelli desire to dismiss Polsinelli from this action with prejudice.

19

7.

The parties have agreed that dismissal of Polsinelli shall have no impact on Plaintiff’s

20
21

claims against Domtar.
8.

Further, to the extent Plaintiff obtains a judgment against Domtar, the parties have

22

agreed that nothing in the Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff and Polsinelli shall be used as an

23

offset to Plaintiff’s claims against Domtar.

24

9.

25

and costs.

26
27

10.

The parties have agreed that Plaintiff and Polsinelli shall pay their own attorney’s fees

The parties have agreed to request that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the parties

to enforce the Settlement Agreement.

28
-4STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS DEFENDANT POLSINELLI PC WITH PREJUDICE
Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp., et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD

1
2
3

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on October 27, 2017 at Los Angeles, California.

4
5

/s/ Derek J. Meyer
Derek J. Meyer

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS DEFENDANT POLSINELLI PC WITH PREJUDICE
Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp., et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1
2

I, Derek J. Meyer, an attorney, hereby certify that the attached STIPULATION &

3

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS DEFENDANT POLSINELLI PC WITH PREJUDICE was

4

served via CM/ECF on October 27, 2017 to all counsel of record.

5
6

Dated: October 27, 2017

LEONARDMEYER LLP

7
8
9

By: /s/ Derek J. Meyer
Derek J. Meyer
Attorneys for Plaintiff

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS DEFENDANT POLSINELLI PC WITH PREJUDICE
Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp., et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD