UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 6, 2009
HOLUX TECHNOLOGY, INC., PLAINTIFF,
INT'L ALLY, INC.; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
INT'L ALLY, INC., COUNTERCLAIMANT,
HOLUX TECHNOLOGY, INC., AND ROES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, COUNTERDEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge
STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT ORDER
Plaintiff Holux Technology, Inc. ("Holux") filed the above-captioned action against Defendant Int'l Ally, Inc. ("Ally") for breach of contract, seeking damages in the amount of $1,490,000.00, on or about March 5, 2008. Ally counterclaimed against Holux for breach of contract and sought declaratory relief from the Court on or about March 31, 2008. Holux and Ally (collectively "the Parties") have resolved and have agreed upon a private damages settlement. Accordingly, both parties consent to the entry of the following judgment:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. Judgment is entered for Plaintiff Holux Technology, Inc. against Defendant Int'l Ally, Inc. for $1,200,000.00.
2. Int'l Ally will pay to Holux the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($10,000.00) on or before May 15, 2009.
3. Int'l Ally will make available for pick-up by Holux the following items which shall then become the property of Holux: all remaining SD cards (approximately 4,600 units) and 600 GPS units, which items were part of the sale agreement that is the subject of the above-captioned action. Ally makes no warranty as to the items and Holux will receive the items on an "as is" basis. The transfer of the SD cards and GPS units shall be completed on or before May 15, 2009.
4. The Court has and retains jurisdiction over the parties to this action and the subject matter of this litigation, and any action to enforce or modify this Consent Judgment.
5. In any suit to enforce the terms of this Order, the party seeking enforcement shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs if that party demonstrates that there was a violation of the terms of this Order.
Based upon the foregoing Stipulation of counsel and good cause appearing therefor,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.