Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

REARDEN LLC v. REARDEN COMMERCE, INC., 5:06-CV-07367-LHK (PSG). (2013)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20130520e52 Visitors: 24
Filed: May 17, 2013
Latest Update: May 17, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION TO REFUND CASH COLLATERAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. The parties, through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate pursuant to Local Rule 7-12 as follows: WHEREAS, on July 2, 2010, the Court entered judgment for Defendant Rearden Commerce, Inc. (Dkt. 282); WHEREAS, Defendant submitted its Bill of Costs on July 16, 2010 (Dkt. 283); WHEREAS, Rearden LLC, Rearden Productions LLC, Rearden Studios LLC, Rearden, Inc., and Rearden Properties L
More

STIPULATION TO REFUND CASH COLLATERAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.

The parties, through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate pursuant to Local Rule 7-12 as follows:

WHEREAS, on July 2, 2010, the Court entered judgment for Defendant Rearden Commerce, Inc. (Dkt. 282);

WHEREAS, Defendant submitted its Bill of Costs on July 16, 2010 (Dkt. 283);

WHEREAS, Rearden LLC, Rearden Productions LLC, Rearden Studios LLC, Rearden, Inc., and Rearden Properties LLC ("Plaintiffs") filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Dkt. 284);

WHEREAS, on August 30, 2010, the parties stipulated (Dkt. 290) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) that Plaintiffs could stay execution of judgment for payment of costs upon either posting a supersedeas bond, or depositing with the Court funds, in an amount not less than $35,770.12, and the Court so ordered (Dkt. 291);

WHEREAS, on September 8, 2010, Plaintiffs deposited cash collateral with the court in the amount of $35,770.12 (Dkt. 292) with receipt number 34611050351;

WHEREAS, on June 27, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the Court's grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings, 683 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2012); and

WHEREAS, on April 1, 2013, the Court granted the parties' stipulated dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. 322);

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that:

There is no longer a need for the Court to maintain the cash collateral deposited by Plaintiffs, and the parties respectfully request the Court refund to Plaintiffs their deposit of $35,770.12.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer