Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sonoma Tires, Inc., A California v. Big O Tires

October 1, 2012

SONOMA TIRES, INC., A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
BIG O TIRES, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Richard Seeborg

STIPULATION REGARDING LITIGATION DEADLINES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER [L.R. 7-12] Date: October 25, 2012 Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: Courtroom

Big O Tires, LLC ("Big O"), on the one hand, and Sonoma Tires, Inc. ("Sonoma") and John G. Rhiel, IV ("Rhiel"), on the other hand, (collectively, "Parties") by and through their 3 respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and jointly request that the Court issue an Order 4 as follows: 5

on October 11, 2012. 7

hearing on October 11, 2012. 9

on September 14, 2012. At the mediation, a complex settlement proposal was discussed. The 11 proposal involves the acquisition of the Sonoma store by Big O. 12 time for Big O to evaluate the potential settlement. [See Dkt. No. 57] The hearing date is 14 currently set for October 25, 2012, with Oppositions due October 2, 2012, and Replies due 15

WHEREAS, Big O has requested additional time to evaluate the potential settlement.

Big O is presently reviewing and analyzing additional financial and accounting data provided by 18 Sonoma to determine whether to proceed with a detailed evaluation of the proposal. Big O 19 requires certain corporate decision makers to participate in the decision to further evaluate the 20 settlement. Big O expects that, due to the significant nature of the potential transaction and the 21 travel schedules and press of business of its employees, that its decision to further evaluate the 22 proposal will require at least two to three additional weeks followed by a detailed valuation of 23 the business. A detailed valuation of the business is expected to require, at a minimum, 24 additional financial analysis and a visit to the Sonoma store to inspect inventory and equipment 25 to support that valuation. 26

WHEREAS, the settlement proposal takes into consideration attorneys' fees incurred by 27 the parties. The parties do not wish to incur unnecessary litigation costs while Big O evaluates 28

WHEREAS, Big O has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment initially set for hearing

WHEREAS, Sonoma has filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment initially set for

WHEREAS, after filing the above motions, the parties participated in a private mediation

WHEREAS, the Court continued the hearing on the parties' respective motions to allow

October 11, 212. [Id.] 16

the potential settlement, nor do the parties wish to burden the Court with potentially ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.