Massuda v. Panda Express, Inc. et al
Filing
72
MOTION by Defendants Andrew Cherng, Peggy Cherng, Citadel Panda Express, Inc., Panda Express, Inc., Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. for judgment as proposed (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Final Judgment)(Miari, Tanya)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DR. FORTUNEE MASSUDA, an Illinois
resident and citizen,
Civil Action No. 12-CV-09683
Honorable Ronald A. Guzman
Plaintiff,
v.
PANDA EXPRESS, INC., a California
corporation, PANDA RESTAURANT
GROUP, INC. f/k/a PANDA
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., a
California corporation, CITADEL PANDA
EXPRESS, INC., a California Corporation,
ANDREW CHERNG, a California resident
and citizen, and PEGGY CHERNG, a
California resident and citizen.
Defendants.
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
Defendants Panda Express et al. (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their
undersigned attorneys respectfully request that this Court enter the proposed final Judgment,
attached hereto as Exhibit A. In support of this Motion, Defendants state as follows:
1.
On July 16, 2013, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, dismissing
all claims with prejudice except Plaintiff’s individual fraud claim, which was dismissed without
prejudice. Plaintiff was allowed 14 days to file an amended fraud claim. (Docket No. 58).
2.
On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a Status Report indicating that she did not
intend to amend, and with respect to the fraud claim which was dismissed without prejudice,
would stand on the allegations of the Complaint. (Docket No. 66).
3.
On July 25, 2013, counsel for the parties attended a status hearing on this matter
before this Honorable Court, where Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed Plaintiff did not intend to
1
amend the individual fraud claim, and would stand on the allegations of the Complaint. Based
on Plaintiff’s representations that she did not intend to amend, Defendants’ moved that all
claims, including the individual fraud claim, be dismissed with prejudice. Counsel for Plaintiff
indicated that Plaintiff did not oppose, and the Court directed that all claims would be dismissed
with prejudice.
4.
As the Court has granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff has stated
she does not intend to re-plead the only salvageable claim, judgment should be entered against
Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants in the form of the proposed final Judgment attached hereto,
dismissing this action with prejudice.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter the proposed final
Judgment attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Respectfully submitted,
PANDA EXPRESS, INC., CITADEL
PANDA EXPRESS, INC., PANDA
RESTAURANT GROUP, ANDREW
CHERNG, and PEGGY CHERNG
Dated: August 2, 2013
By:
/Tanya H. Miari/
One of Their Attorneys
Michael Dockterman (IL Bar No. 3121675)
mdockterman@edwardswildman.com
William R. Lee (IL Bar No. 6280450)
wlee@edwardswildman.com
Tanya H. Miari (IL Bar No. 6290224)
tmiari@edwardswildman.com
EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP
225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 201-2000
Christopher D. Dusseault*
cdusseault@gibsondunn.com
Theane Evangelis Kapur*
tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
(213) 229-7000
* Admitted pro hac vice
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, certifies under penalty of perjury that on August 2, 2013, a
true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROPOSED FINAL
JUDGMENT was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of
Illinois using the CM/ECF system and thereby served by e-mail notification upon all parties of
record.
______/s/ Tanya H. Miari_____
3
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?