Peiker Acustic, Inc. et al v. Kennedy
Nunc Pro Tunc ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice 112 is granted. Their defamation claim against Patrick Kennedy is Dismissed With Prejudice by Judge John L. Kane on 04/04/12. (jjhsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge John L. Kane
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02083-JLK
PEIKER ACUSTIC, INC. and
PEIKER ACUSTIC GMBH & CO. KG,
NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER
This matter is currently before me on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal with
Prejudice (doc. 112). Plaintiffs seek dismissal of their claim for defamation against Defendant
Because Defendant objects to the voluntary dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs’
complaint may be dismissed only by a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Furthermore,
because Defendant has pleaded a counterclaim before being served with Plaintiffs’ motion,
Plaintiffs’ claim may be dismissed only if the counterclaim can remain pending for independent
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion and the grounds state therein, their motion is
GRANTED. Their defamation claim against Patrick Kennedy is DISMISSED WITH
In light of Defendant’s objection, however, I condition this dismissal upon the following
Plaintiffs relinquish any past, present, or future right to sue (“covenant not
to sue”) Defendant for any statement either in or arising out Defendant’s
book, Ideajacked, his publication of the book, or this litigation.
Plaintiffs’ covenant not to sue extends to all jurisdictions, both foreign and
Plaintiffs’ covenant not to sue extends to criminal, civil, and
Plaintiffs’ covenant not to sue extends to both oral and written statements
Issues relating to the allocation of attorney fees and costs will be reserved pending resolution of
Defendant’s counterclaims for abuse of process and exemplary damages.
DATED: April 4, 2012 (Nunc Pro Tunc)
BY THE COURT:
/s/ John L. Kane
Senior U.S. District Court Judge
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?