Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03988/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03988-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL 1 Case No. 3:05-cv-03988 (CRB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Matthew G. Ball (SBN 208881)

matthew.ball@klgates.com

Harold H. Davis, Jr. (SBN 235552)

harold.davis@klgates.com

Jas S. Dhillon (SBN 252842)

jas.dhillon@klgates.com

K&L GATES LLP

Four Embarcadero Center, 12th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel: (415) 882-8200

Fax: (415) 882-8220

Attorneys for Defendants MARCONI PLC, 

MARCONI COMMUNICATIONS and 

TELENT LTD.

James J. Seltzer (SBN 54533)

jamesjseltzer@gmail.com

THE LAW OFFICES OF 

JAMES J. SELTZER

3300 Powell Street, Suite 201

Emeryville, CA 94608

Telephone: (510) 596-2500

Facsimile: (510) 596-2519

Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN OSANITSCH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOHN OSANITSCH,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MARCONI PLC; MARCONI ACQUISITION 

SUB, INC., MARCONI 

COMMUNICATIONS; TELEPHON AB L.M. 

ERICCSON; and TELENT LTD.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:05-cv-03988 (CRB)

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FED. R. 

CIV. PRO. 41(a)

Case 3:05-cv-03988-CRB Document 158 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL 2 Case No. 3:05-cv-03988 (CRB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WHEREAS, on or about December 30, 2004, Plaintiff John Osanitsch (“Osanitsch”) 

commenced an action in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for Sonoma County, 

entitled Osanitsch v. Marconi, Case No. SCV 236042 (the “Complaint”);

WHEREAS, on or about October 3, 2005, Defendant Marconi plc (“Marconi”) filed a Notice 

of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) removing Plaintiff’s action to the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California;

WHEREAS, on or about October 14, 2005, this action was assigned to Honorable Charles R. 

Breyer, Case No. 3:05-cv-03988-CRB, for all further proceedings;

WHEREAS, on December 17, 2008, Osanitsch filed his First Amended Complaint;

WHEREAS, on January 29, 2009, Marconi filed a motion to dismiss Osanitsch’s First 

Amended Complaint;

WHEREAS, on March 20, 2009, after evaluating Marconi’s motion to dismiss and holding 

oral argument, Judge Breyer partially granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed four of the five 

claims against Marconi; specifically, Judge Breyer held that Osanitsch’s claims for fraud and deceit, 

negligent misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and wrongful discharge 

were barred by the respective statute of limitations;

WHEREAS, on September 18, 2009, Defendants Marconi, Marconi Communications and 

Telent Ltd. (collectively “Defendants”) moved for summary judgment on Osanitsch’s remaining 

claim;

WHEREAS, on December 21, 2009, Judge Breyer granted summary judgment in favor of 

Defendants and against Osanitsch dismissing his remaining breach of contract cause of action;

WHEREAS, on December 22, 2009, Judge Breyer entered judgment in favor of Defendants 

and against Osanitsch;

WHEREAS, on January 5, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 

the terms of the Employee Separation Agreement and General Release executed by the parties; 

WHEREAS, on January 19, 2010, Osanitsch appealed the Court’s: (1) Order Partially 

Granting Marconi’s Motion to Dismiss Osanitsch’s First Amended Complaint and (2) Order 

Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment;

Case 3:05-cv-03988-CRB Document 158 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL 3 Case No. 3:05-cv-03988 (CRB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WHEREAS Plaintiff and Defendants have reached an agreement that fully and finally 

resolves the Complaint and, therefore, desire that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING, the undersigned parties, through their 

counsel of record, hereby STIPULATE and AGREE as follows:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff and Defendants that this entire 

action shall be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

THE LAW OFFICES OF 

JAMES J. SELTZER

Dated: June 10, 2010 By: /s/ James J. Seltzer

James J. Seltzer

Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN OSANITSCH

K&L GATES LLP

Dated: June 10, 2010 By: /s/ Jas S. Dhillon

Jas S. Dhillon

Attorneys for Defendants MARCONI PLC, 

MARCONI COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TELENT LTD.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________ _____________________________________

The Honorable Charles R. Breyer

June 22, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:05-cv-03988-CRB Document 158 Filed 06/22/10 Page 3 of 3