Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01501/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01501-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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 

MANATT, PHELPS &

PHILLIPS, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

CASE NO. C-04-1501 RMW (PVT) 

CHRISTOPHER L. WANGER (CA Bar No. 164751) 

RYAN S. HILBERT (CA Bar No. 210549) 

MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 

1001 Page Mill Road, Building 2 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1006 

Telephone: (650) 812-1300 

Facsimile: (650) 213-0260 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, 

PORTRAIT DISPLAYS, INC. and Counterdefendants, J. MICHAEL 

JAMES and JAMES CASEY 

MICHAEL T. WELCH (CA Bar No. 122630) 

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL T. WELCH 

Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1150 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 765-4648 

Facsimile: (415) 399-3006 

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants, 

BRYAN SPEECE, ASHLEY SALDANHA AND ENTECH TAIWAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

PORTRAIT DISPLAYS, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BRYAN SPEECE, ASHLEY 

SALDANHA and ENTECH TAIWAN 

Defendants. 

Case No.: C 04 1501 RMW PVT 

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

[28 U.S.C. § 1367] 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, Portrait Displays, Inc. (“PDI”), and 

Counterdefendants J. Michael James (“James”) and James Casey (“Casey”) (collectively, 

“PDI”) and Defendant and Counterclaimant, Bryan Speece, while not admitting any of the 

allegations of the Complaint or Counterclaims in this action hereby stipulate as follows: 

AND ORDER

*E-FILED - 10/27/05*

Case 5:04-cv-01501-RMW Document 116 Filed 10/27/05 Page 1 of 3
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 

MANATT, PHELPS &

PHILLIPS, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES 2

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

CASE NO. C-04-1501 RMW (PVT) 

WHEREAS, on July 8, 2005, Speece filed a Motion to Dismiss And/Or Remand 

For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (the “Motion”) in which he sought dismissal 

and/or remand the action to California state court; 

WHEREAS, on October 4, 2005, this Court issued an Order (the “Order”) granting 

Mr. Speece’s Motion without specifying whether the action was to be remanded or simply 

dismissed; 

WHEREAS, PDI contends that the Court’s Order was improvidently granted 

because (1) the Stipulated Order of Dismissal that was submitted by PDI and Mr. 

Speece’s co-defendants, Ashley Saldanha and EnTech Taiwan, on August 18, 2005, and 

which forms a basis for the Court’s October 4 Order has not yet been entered by this 

Court and, thus, this Court still has federal question jurisdiction over PDI’s claim for 

copyright infringement against those two co-defendants; and (2) even if the Stipulated 

Order of Dismissal submitted on August 18, 2005 were entered, that Stipulated Order 

specifically provides that the Court shall retain, and not cede, jurisdiction over this action; 

WHEREAS, PDI further contends that the Court’s October 4 Order is vague 

because it does not specify whether the Court intends to remand the action to state court as 

PDI believes it should so that the action can be resolved on the merits; 

WHEREAS, in light of the issues raised above, PDI is prepared immediately to file 

a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration And/Or Clarification of the 

Court’s October 4 Order to address such issues; and 

WHEREAS, Mr. Speece does not oppose dismissal of the action; 

 WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the 

parties hereto through their respective counsel that this action, and any claims remaining 

therein of either PDI or Speece, shall be dismissed without prejudice, that neither the 

foregoing Order or this dismissal shall be deemed an adjudication on the merits of such 

dismissed claims, and that such dismissed claims shall be subject to the tolling provisions 

of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(d). 

Case 5:04-cv-01501-RMW Document 116 Filed 10/27/05 Page 2 of 3
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 

MANATT, PHELPS &

PHILLIPS, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES 3

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

CASE NO. C-04-1501 RMW (PVT) 

Dated: October 24, 2005 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 

By: /s/ Christopher L. Wanger 

 Christopher L. Wanger 

 Attorneys for 

 Portrait Displays, Inc., J. Michael James 

 and James Casey

Dated: October 24, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL T. WELCH 

By: /s/ Michael Welch 

 Michael T. Welch 

 Attorneys for 

 Bryan Speece 

 Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding 

signatures, Christopher L. Wanger hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this 

document has been obtained. 

ORDER

 Pursuant to Stipulation and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

this action shall be dismissed without prejudice, and subject to the tolling provisions of 28 

U.S.C. Sec. 1367(d). 

Dated: __________, 2005 

 Ronald M. Whyte 

United States District Judge 

20145410.1 

10/27

/S/ RONALD M. WHYTE

Case 5:04-cv-01501-RMW Document 116 Filed 10/27/05 Page 3 of 3