Medbox Incorporated v. Kaplan et al
Filing
114
CONSENT JUDGMENT. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NOTIS GLOBAL, INC., f/k/a
MEDBOX INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
Counter-Defendant
v.
Case No. 13-14775 (consolidated
with Case No. 14-11749)
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
DARRYL KAPLAN, CLAUDIO
TARTAGLIA and ERIC KOVAN,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs
MEDVEND HOLDINGS, LLC,
Case No. 14-11749 (consolidated
with Case No. 13-14775)
Plaintiff,
v.
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
NOTIS GLOBAL, INC., f/k/a
MEDBOX INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
CONSENT JUDGMENT
The parties having entered into a Settlement Agreement which provides for
the entry of this Consent Judgment in the event of a default of the Settlement
Agreement; default having been made in the payments due under the Settlement
Agreement; the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant having agreed under the Settlement
1
Agreement to authorize Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs’ counsel to reinstate this
matter for the sole purpose of entering this Consent Judgment after providing twenty
(20) day period to cure the default; the cure period having expired, and the Court
being otherwise fully advised in this matter:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of
Counter-Plaintiffs Darryl Kaplan, Claudio Tartaglia and Eric Kovan against
Defendant Notis Global f/k/a Medbox Incorporated, in the amount of $937,500.00
(minus any settlement payments paid to date in the amount of $0 = $937,500.00).
Judgment interest shall accrue on this judgment at the current statutory rates.
This judgment does resolve the last pending claim and does close this case.
/s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 25, 2017
Stipulated as to entry:
Notis Global Inc., f/k/a Medbox Incorporated
By: Jeffrey Goh
Its: President
2
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?