AutoOpt Networks, Inc. v. Karani, 4:17-cv-04714-HSG. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20181214b12
Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 13, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING CASE HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant AUTOOPT NETWORKS, INC. ("Autoopt") and Defendant and Counter-Claimant, GNANENTHIRAN JAYANTHAN ("Jayanthan"), an individual, by and through their undersigned counsel, agree and stipulate to the following; 1. Autoopt's First Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice by the Court previously pursuant to stipulation of the parties as authorized by
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING CASE HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant AUTOOPT NETWORKS, INC. ("Autoopt") and Defendant and Counter-Claimant, GNANENTHIRAN JAYANTHAN ("Jayanthan"), an individual, by and through their undersigned counsel, agree and stipulate to the following; 1. Autoopt's First Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice by the Court previously pursuant to stipulation of the parties as authorized by R..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING CASE
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., District Judge.
STIPULATION
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant AUTOOPT NETWORKS, INC. ("Autoopt") and Defendant and Counter-Claimant, GNANENTHIRAN JAYANTHAN ("Jayanthan"), an individual, by and through their undersigned counsel, agree and stipulate to the following;
1. Autoopt's First Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice by the Court previously pursuant to stipulation of the parties as authorized by Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Jayanthan's counterclaim asserts compulsory counter claims that are subject to the court's supplemental jurisdiction.
3. The parties jointly agree that the court should decline to continue to exercise Supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim pursuant to 28 USCA section 1367(c)(3) and, instead, order the counterclaim dismissed without prejudice so it can be re-filed in the Superior Court of California.
4. The parties acknowledge, stipulate and agree that all statutes of limitation applicable to Jayanthan's counterclaims under California law have been tolled during the pendency of his counterclaim in this court, and will continue to be tolled for a period of 30 days after the dismissal of the counterclaim, pursuant to 28 USCA section 1367(d).
ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE IN FILING
Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer hereby attests that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories, which shall serve in lieu of their signatures on this document.
ORDER
Autoopt's First Amended Complaint has been dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of the parties as authorized by Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As to Jayanthan's counterclaim, based on the stipulation of the parties and finding good cause for the actions jointly requested therein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Although Jayanthan's counterclaim asserts compulsory counter claims that are subject to the court's supplemental jurisdiction, the court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim pursuant to 28 USCA section 1367(c)(3) and, instead, the counterclaim is dismissed without prejudice.
2. All statutes of limitation applicable to Jayanthan's counterclaim under California law have been tolled during the pendency of the counterclaim, and will continue to be tolled for a period of 30 days after this dismissal of the counterclaim, pursuant to 28 USCA section 1367(d).
3. As a result, this case is dismissed in its entirety.
Source: Leagle
