UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Similar documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:08-cv GAF-AJW Document 253 Filed 01/06/2009 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:08-cv GAF-AJW Document 250 Filed 01/05/2009 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

[PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CLAIMS

Case 2:14-cv JCC Document 98 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

1631 Zimmerman Trail 319 Maverick St. Billings, MT San Antonio, TX T: (406) T: (210) F: (406) F: (210)

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:16-cv TSE-TCB Document 114 Filed 10/06/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 1372

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO:

AGREED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Plaintiff, Defendant. for Denbury Resources, Inc. ("Denbury" or "Defendant") shares pursuant to the merger of

Courthouse News Service

Case 2:16-cv RSL Document 84 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 7

Case 5:05-cv RMW Document 97 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4:14-cv MAG-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 04/03/14 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:09-cv RB-RHS Document 139 Filed 11/01/13 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Case 1:18-cv KBF Document 83 Filed 05/18/18 Page 1 of 13

Case3:12-cv VC Document21 Filed06/09/14 Page1 of 12

Case 2:16-cv ADS-AKT Document 24 Filed 06/23/17 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 161

Case 1:14-cv VEC Document 259 Filed 01/24/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 5:17-cv D Document 12 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 5

Case 7:15-cv AT-LMS Document 129 Filed 05/04/18 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:13-cv JRG-RSP Document 12 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 104

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

Case: 5:09-cv DDD Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/04/09 1 of 5. PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

DEADLINE.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA COMPLAINT

Case 0:11-cv CMA Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2015 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case Doc 11 Filed 10/18/17 Entered 10/18/17 20:19:50 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 17

Case 2:17-cv JMV-CLW Document 23 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 168..EruvLitigation.com

WHEREAS, LegalMatch acknowledges that persons eligible to utilize legal aid services are not LegalMatch s target demographic;

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/ :58 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/03/2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

PLAINTIFF S EXHIBIT 1

NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION

Case 3:13-cv M Document 60 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1778

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : : : : : : PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IOC SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YOR. This matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to this Court's Order Granting

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/19/ :45 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 168 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2018

IIAR CONN )14)R1) toliv

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case: 4:16-cv ERW Doc. #: 95 Filed: 12/15/17 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #: 734

Case 4:10-cv YGR Document Filed 06/17/16 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

Case 3:08-cv VRW Document 11 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:06-cv AB-JC Document 797 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:25126

COMMERCIAL DIVISION PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE ORDER PURSUANT TO PART 202 OF THE UNIFORM CIVIL RULES FOR THE SUPREME COURT KINGS COUNTY

Case 0:13-cv MGC Document 77-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/15/2015 Page 1 of 55 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

Case 1:16-cv BLW Document 16 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 2

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) SCHEDULING ORDER. Pharmaceuticals Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Case 4:13-cv YGR Document 126 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Filing # E-Filed 10/09/ :39:26 PM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: Civ-Martinez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

EEOC v. Mcdonald's Restaurants of California, Inc.

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. Plaintiff, Defendant.

Case 3:14-cv SI Document 240 Filed 11/21/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON

Case 3:17-cv AJB-KSC Document 1 Filed 05/23/17 PageID.1 Page 1 of 8

[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

Case 4:17-cv PJH Document 61 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 33

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

Case 3:16-cv SI Document 39 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 5

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/25/ :15 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/25/2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Case 1:12-cv VEC Document 186 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 11. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x

Case3:13-cv MMC Document95 Filed09/17/14 Page1 of 7

Case 1:13-cv WJM-BNB Document 23 Filed 10/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Case 1:16-cv LTS Document 2 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Case No.

[~DJ FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOSHIBA ENTITIES AND THE STATE OF ILLINOIS REGARDING CRT ANTITRUST LITIGATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

cag Doc#413 Filed 04/02/18 Entered 04/02/18 13:54:23 Main Document Pg 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT

Case KRH Doc 628 Filed 10/08/15 Entered 10/08/15 13:37:03 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1294 v.

Case 3:14-cv RBL Document 26 Filed 10/23/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Case3:11-cv EMC Document70 Filed03/06/14 Page1 of 43

Case 1:13-cv JKB Document 180 Filed 06/02/17 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 2:06-cv RSM Document 30 Filed 05/04/2006 Page 1 of 6

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE. day of April, 2018, by and between the Bergen Rockland Eruv Association, Inc. ("BREA"),

Case 1:02-cv LJM-WTL Document 117 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case5:09-cv JW Document106 Filed04/22/10 Page1 of 9

Transcription:

Case :0-cv-00-GAF-AJW Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 GLASER, WEIL, FINK, JACOBS & SHAPIRO LLP Patricia L. Glaser (0 Kevin J. Leichter ( pglaser@chrisglase.com kleichter@chrisglase.com 00 Constellation Blvd., th Floor Los Angeles, California 00 Telephone: (0-000 Facsimile: (0 - Steven A. Marenberg (00 Laura A. Seigle ( smarenberg@irell.com lseigle@irell.com 00 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 00 Los Angeles, California 00 Telephone: (0-00 Facsimile: (0 - Attorneys for Defendants ALSTON & BIRD LLP Louis A. Karasik (00 Casondra K. Ruga ( Lou.Karasik@alston.com Casondra.Ruga@alston.com South Hope Street, th Floor Los Angeles, California 00 Telephone: ( -000 Facsimile: ( -00 Attorneys for Plaintiff TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, vs. Plaintiff, WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; WB STUDIO ENTERPRISES, INC.; WARNER BROS. PICTURES, Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. CV 0-0 GAF (AJWx [Case assigned to Hon. Gary A. Feess] STIPULATION RE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS FOLLOWING COURT'S DECEMBER, 0 ORDER RE FOX MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Complaint Filed: February, 0 Trial Date: January, 0. 0-0 GAF (AJWx

Case :0-cv-00-GAF-AJW Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 Plaintiff Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation ( Fox and defendants Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., WB Studio Enterprises, Inc. and Warner Bros. Pictures (collectively Warner Bros., by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree and ask the Court to enter an Order hereon as follows: WHEREAS, on December, 0, the Court issued an interim Order in connection with the parties cross-motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication of issues expressing, inter alia, the Court's conclusion that Fox owns, at the least, a distribution right with respect to the Watchmen motion picture produced by Warner Bros. and the Court has indicated that a further order detailing the Court s ruling on the issues is forthcoming; WHEREAS Fox s claim for copyright infringement of the distribution right with respect to any work based on or derived from the Watchmen graphic novel and/or subsequent screenplays by Sam Hamm and Charles McKeown ("Watchmen", including without limitation the Watchmen motion picture produced by Warner Bros., is hereafter referred to as Fox's Distribution Claim, and whereas Warner Bros. disputes that Fox has any distribution rights in the Watchmen motion picture produced by Warner Bros. or any other work based on or derived from the Watchmen graphic novel and/or subsequent screenplays by Sam Hamm and Charles McKeown. For purposes of this Stipulation, all of Fox s remaining claims and issues in this action are referred to as the Remaining Claims; WHEREAS, a Status Conference was held on December, 0, for the purpose of determining how the case should proceed in light of the Court's conclusions in the December th Order, and WHEREAS, following the Status Conference the parties, through their respective counsel of record, have engaged in further discussions aimed at defining the nature and scope of future proceedings in this case, including, but not limited to - - 0-0 GAF (AJWx

Case :0-cv-00-GAF-AJW Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 the nature and scope of any trial or hearing scheduled for Tuesday, January, 0, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED as follows:. Fox hereby waives any and all rights to seek injunctive relief for any claim or matter other than the Distribution Claim. For avoidance of doubt, Warner Bros. agrees that, if the Court determines that an injunction is an appropriate remedy, Fox is entitled on the Distribution Claim to enjoin release of the Watchmen picture produced by Warner Bros., provided that nothing herein is intended as any admission by Warner Bros. that Fox s Distribution Claim or any other claim has merit, that Fox has suffered irreparable injury or that injunction is an appropriate remedy for the alleged infringement of the distribution right.. The next proceeding in this case, currently scheduled for January, 0, shall be limited to the question of whether Fox is entitled to a permanent injunction on its Distribution Claim with respect to the Watchmen picture produced by Warner Bros. (the "Permanent Injunction Hearing". The Permanent Injunction Hearing shall be a non-jury proceeding.. In the event the Court grants an injunction restraining release of the Watchmen picture, Fox agrees to immediately dismiss, without prejudice, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, any and all claims in this case except its Distribution Claim. To effectuate the foregoing, upon the commencement of the Preliminary Injunction Hearing, Fox shall deliver to counsel for Warner Bros. a fully executed Stipulation of Dismissal providing for the dismissal, without prejudice, of all claims in the case except the Distribution Claim. Said Stipulation of Dismissal shall be of no force and effect, and may not be filed, unless and until the Court grants an injunction restraining release of the Watchmen picture at the conclusion of the Permanent Injunction Hearing - - 0-0 GAF (AJWx

Case :0-cv-00-GAF-AJW Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0. After the Permanent Injunction Hearing, any further trial court proceedings in this case, if any, shall not occur until the conclusion of any appellate proceedings initiated by Warner Bros. after the grant of permanent injunctive relief or initiated by Fox after the denial of permanent injunctive relief.. Warner Bros. and Fox each agree that, following a determination by the Court of the matters presented at the Permanent Injunction Proceeding, neither party shall oppose any request by the other party to expedite any subsequent appellate review of the Court s ruling on the injunction issue.. Upon the conclusion of any such appellate proceedings referenced in paragraph, the parties agree that Fox shall be entitled to pursue all Remaining Claims, including Remaining Claims dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Paragraph above, except that in the event an injunction restraining release of the Watchmen picture is affirmed on appeal, and only in that event, Fox shall not pursue any remaining copyright infringement claims, i.e., any and all copyright claims other than the Distribution Claim.. Upon remand of the case to the district court following the conclusion of all appellate proceedings contemplated here (the parties state their understanding and agreement that remand would be necessary and appropriate whether an injunction is affirmed on appeal or an order denying injunction is reversed on appeal, Fox shall be entitled to further pursue all Remaining Claims dismissed without prejudice, except as provided in Paragraph above, by filing an amended complaint setting forth the Remaining Claims in accordance with Paragraph above, and the parties stipulate and agree that leave to file such an amended complaint is appropriate and shall be granted. In the event Fox chooses, however, to file a new action, the new action shall be considered a related claim to this action under Local Rule -.. and Warner Bros. agrees that it shall be assigned to this Court for all further proceedings. The parties stipulate and agree that upon refiling, the Remaining Claims shall be treated as if they had never been dismissed without - - 0-0 GAF (AJWx

Case :0-cv-00-GAF-AJW Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 prejudice (i.e., they shall be treated in the same procedural posture as if they had not been dismissed following the Permanent Injunction Hearing. A trial date and pre-trial schedule for any Remaining Claims and issues remaining in the action shall be set by the Court at a status conference to be held promptly after the appellate proceedings are concluded and remanded to this Court. With respect to such further proceedings, the parties hereby jointly acknowledge that the calculation of damages, if any, would be premature until the release and exploitation of the Watchmen picture in at least most worldwide theatrical markets, so that trial shall be set for a date no earlier than July, 0, in order that discovery can be conducted on damages issues following release of the Watchmen picture in March 0 (should release of the picture not be enjoined. Nothing herein is intended to preclude either party from completing all discovery initiated prior to the time of this Order or allowed by this Court in connection with the Permanent Injunction Hearing. Warner Bros. agrees that Fox s dismissal without prejudice of Remaining Claims does not result in, nor will Warner Bros. ever argue that, as a result of the dismissal or any actions taken to effectuate the dismissal, Fox s Remaining Claims are barred by collateral estoppel, res judicata, waiver, release or any other doctrines of claim preclusion at law or in equity. Warner Bros. agrees that any statute of limitations, doctrines of repose or any similar doctrines at law or in equity that might otherwise be applicable to bar Fox s further pursuit of the Remaining Claims shall be tolled from the time Fox dismisses the claims until such time as the claims are refiled or pursued by amended complaint as provided for herein, and that Warner Bros. will never argue that, as a result of the dismissal or any actions taken to effectuate the dismissal, any such doctrines preclude Fox from further pursuing the Remaining Claims or give rise to additional defenses in favor of Warner Bros. The parties agree to execute any further documentation necessary to ensure that Fox's right to refile or pursue by amended complaint any claims - - 0-0 GAF (AJWx

Case :0-cv-00-GAF-AJW Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of