-SS Water, Inc. v. Everpure, Inc. et al, No. 2:2009cv03389 - Document 295 (C.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Audrey B. Collins, Having considered the Motions for Summary Judgment and Judgment on the Pleadings filed by the Defendants Everpure, Inc., Everpure, LLC; Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC, Pentair, Inc., Gerard McKeown, Mik e Madsen and Debra Barton (Everpure Defendants)[Dkt. No. 167] and Purcell Murray Company, Inc. (Purcell Murray) [Dkt. No. 175] (all defendants collectively referenced as Defendants), and having considered the Parties briefing, evidentiary objections, and other submissions relating to those motions, as well as oral argument presented by counsel at the December 19, 2011 hearing on the motions, the Court has reached the following decision, the grounds for which are fully set forth in the December 2 0, 2011 Order Granting Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and Judgment on the Pleadings [Dkt. No. 242]: It is ordered that summary judgment is granted in Defendants' favor, that Plaintiff Water (Water) recover nothing, and that all of its cl aims againstDefendants be dismissed on the merits. In addition, having considered the Motion for Summary Judgment and Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Counter-Defendant Water, Inc. [Dkt. No. 259], and having considered the parties briefing, evident iary objections, and other submissions relating to those motions, the Court has reached the following decision, the grounds for which are fully set forth in the August 2, 2012 Order Granting Water's Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaint iffs Motion to Strike [Dkt. No. 293]: It is ordered that summary judgment is granted in Waters favor, that Counterclaimants Everpure LLC and Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC recover nothing, and that all of their claims against Water be dismissed on the merits. Each party shall bear their own costs incurred in this action. This judgment is final as there remain no other pending claims. RELATED TO: Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Strike, 293 , MOTION for Summary Judg ment as to all claims and judgment on 0the pleadings 167 , Motion Hearing, 241 , MOTION for Summary Judgment as to The Counterclaims of Everpure, LLC and Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC Counter-Defendant Water, Inc.'s Notice of Mo tion and Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative; Partial Summary Judgment, 259 , MOTION for Summary Judgment as to as to all claims and judgment on the pleadings, 175 , Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion to Strike, 242 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lw)

Download PDF
-SS Water, Inc. v. Everpure, Inc. et al Doc. 295 ROGER W. CLARK, ESQUIRE (#108982) Email: Rclark@cgold.cc ROBERT D. GOLDBERG, ESQUIRE (#137356) Email: Rgoldberg@cgold.cc THE CLARK LAW GROUP 11400 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1150 Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: (310) 478-0077 Facsimile: (310) 478-0099 JS-6 Attorneys for Counter-Defendant, WATER, INC. THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – LOS ANGELES WATER, INC., a California corporation,) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) EVERPURE, INC.; EVERPURE, LLC; ) PENTAIR RESIDENTIAL ) FILTRATION, LLC.; PENTAIR, INC.; ) PURCELL MURRAY COMPANY, ) INC; GERARD McKEOWN; MIKE ) MADSEN; DEBRA BARTON; and ) DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, ) ) Defendant(s) ) ________________________________ ) ) EVERPURE, LLC; PENTAIR RESIDENTIAL FILTRATION, LLC. ) ) ) Counterclaimants, ) vs. ) WATER, INC., a California Corporation ) ) ) Counter-Defendant. CASE NO.: CV 09-03389 ABC (SSx) [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT 1 Dockets.Justia.com Having considered the Motions for Summary Judgment and Judgment on the Pleadings filed by the Defendants Everpure, Inc., Everpure, LLC; Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC, Pentair, Inc., Gerard McKeown, Mike Madsen and Debra Barton (“Everpure Defendants”)[Dkt. No. 167] and Purcell Murray Company, Inc. (“Purcell Murray”) [Dkt. No. 175] (all defendants collectively referenced as “Defendants”), and having considered the Parties’ briefing, evidentiary objections, and other submissions relating to those motions, as well as oral argument presented by counsel at the December 19, 2011 hearing on the motions, the Court has reached the following decision, the grounds for which are fully set forth in the December 20, 2011 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Judgment on the Pleadings [Dkt. No. 242]: It is ordered that summary judgment is granted in Defendants’ favor, that Plaintiff Water (“Water”) recover nothing, and that all of its claims against Defendants be dismissed on the merits. In addition, having considered the Motion for Summary Judgment and Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Counter-Defendant Water, Inc. [Dkt. No. 259], and having considered the parties’ briefing, evidentiary objections, and other submissions relating to those motions, the Court has reached the following decision, 2 the grounds for which are fully set forth in the August 2, 2012 Order Granting Water’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike [Dkt. No. 293]: It is ordered that summary judgment is granted in Water’s favor, that Counterclaimants Everpure LLC and Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC recover nothing, and that all of their claims against Water be dismissed on the merits. Each party shall bear their own costs incurred in this action. This judgment is final as there remain no other pending claims. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. Dated: August 17, 2012 BY THE COURT: ___________________________________ Hon. Audrey B. Collins, District Court Judge F:\WORK\09-1814\MOTIONS\MSJ - COUNTERCLAIM\PROPOSED JUDGMENT_002.DOC 3

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.