Filed: Dec. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff Seneca Insurance Company, though its counsel, and defendants Cybernet Entertainment, LLC; Kink Studios, LLC; Armory Studios, LLC; and Peter Acworth ("Cybernet Defendants") through their counsel, stipulate as follows: 1. This coverage action by Seneca arises out of three underlying actions filed in the San Francisco Superior Court: Joshua Rodgers v. Kink Com., etc., et al.;
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff Seneca Insurance Company, though its counsel, and defendants Cybernet Entertainment, LLC; Kink Studios, LLC; Armory Studios, LLC; and Peter Acworth ("Cybernet Defendants") through their counsel, stipulate as follows: 1. This coverage action by Seneca arises out of three underlying actions filed in the San Francisco Superior Court: Joshua Rodgers v. Kink Com., etc., et al.; ..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
STIPULATION
Plaintiff Seneca Insurance Company, though its counsel, and defendants Cybernet Entertainment, LLC; Kink Studios, LLC; Armory Studios, LLC; and Peter Acworth ("Cybernet Defendants") through their counsel, stipulate as follows:
1. This coverage action by Seneca arises out of three underlying actions filed in the San Francisco Superior Court: Joshua Rodgers v. Kink Com., etc., et al.; identified as case no. CGC-15-54 7036 ("Rodgers"); Cameron Adams v. Kink, etc., et al.; identified as case no. CGC-15-547035 ("Adams"); and John Doe v. Kink Com., etc., et al.; identified as case no. CGC-15-545540 ("Doe"). All three underlying actions have settled.
2. The parties agree that Seneca's present action against the Cybernet Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs.
3. Regarding Cybernet's third-party action against State Compensation Insurance Fund, this Court earlier issued a final judgment in favor of State Fund under F.R.Civ. P. Rule 54(b). That judgment has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, has been fully briefed, and currently awaits argument and decision.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
