-OP David Grober v. Mako Products Inc et al, No. 2:2004cv08604 - Document 419 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Jack Zouhary, in favor of Air Sea Land Productions Inc, Blue Sky Aerials Inc, Cinevideotech Inc, Mako Products Inc, Spectrum Effects Inc against David Grober Related to: Stipulation for Judgment 418 . THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that final judgment be entered and that said Plaintiffs take nothing from said Defendants, and that Defendants take nothing as a result of the counterclaims. (mrgo)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-OP David Grober v. Mako Products Inc et al 1 2 3 4 5 Doc. 419 JS-6 Robert J, Lauson, Esq., No. 175,486 bob@lauson.com LAUSON & TARVER LLP 880 Apollo Street, Suite 301 El Segundo, California 90245 Tel. (310) 726-0892 Fax (310) 726-0893 Attorneys for Plaintiff Voice International, Inc. 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - EASTERN DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 DAVID GROBER, at al., ) CASE NO.: CV 04-08604 JZ (OPx) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) [Proposed] Stipulated Final Judgment XXXXXXXX ) MAKO PRODUCTS, INC. et al, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 22 23 24 Pursuant to the Court’s request for a [proposed] stipulated final judgment, the XXXXXXXX parties state as follows: 25 26 By various Orders throughout this litigation this Court found as a matter of 27 law that the patent-in-suit was not infringed by the accused infringing product and 28 Plaintiffs’ subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied. 0 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Therefore, by reason of said orders, Defendants Mako Products, Inc., Air Sea 2 Land Productions, Inc., Cinevideotech, Inc., Spectrum Effects, Inc., and Blue Sky 3 Aerials, Inc., are the prevailing parties in this action and are entitled to final 4 judgment against Plaintiffs David Grober and Motion Picture Marine, Inc. as to 5 Count One of the Amended Complaint. 6 7 Plaintiff Grober brought a separate action for declaratory relief regarding 8 Defendant Mako Products counterclaims for defamation and antitrust violations. 9 Defendants moved to voluntarily dismissed those claims, and by Order of this 10 Court said claims were thereafter dismissed. 11 12 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that 13 final judgment be entered and that said Plaintiffs take nothing from said 14 Defendants, and that Defendants take nothing as a result of the counterclaims. 15 16 s/ Jack Zouhary Dated: July 30, 2010. Judge Jack Zouhary 17 18 Presented by: 19 20 21 22 /s/ Robert J. Lauson Attorney for Plaintiffs 23 24 25 /s/ Brian Warwick Attorney for Defendants 26 27 28 1
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
