Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04015/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04015-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

Z:\Leaf Lines\v. Sage 

Designs\Pleadings\Stipulated dismissal 2.doc - 1 - [C07-4015 MMC] STIPULATION OF 

DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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

LINDA JOY KATTWINKEL, ESQ. (S.B.N. 164283)

BROOKE OLIVER, ESQ. (S.B.N. 172828) 

OLIVER, KATTWINKEL & SABEC P.C. 

50 Balmy Alley 

San Francisco, CA 94110 

415-641-1116 voice 

415-695-1116 fax 

ljk@okslaw.com 

brooke@okslaw.com

LAWRENCE G. TOWNSEND, ESQ. (S.B.N. 88184) 

OWEN, WICKERSHAM & ERICKSON, P.C. 

455 Market St., Ste. 1910 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

415-882-3200 voice 

415-882-3232 fax 

ltownsend@owe.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 

Leaf Lines LLC and Booker Morey 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LEAF LINES LLC, a California 

Company, and BOOKER MOREY, a 

California state resident, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

MICHAEL D. SAGE and SUSAN

GILMOUR SAGE, Washington state 

residents, dba SAGE DESIGNS, and

DOES 1-100, 

 Defendants. 

No. C 07 4015 MMC

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL 

WITH PREJUDICE AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:07-cv-04015-MMC Document 37 Filed 05/06/08 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:07-cv-04015-MMC Document 37 Filed 05/06/08 Page 2 of 3
Z:\Leaf Lines\v. Sage 

Designs\Pleadings\Stipulated dismissal 2.doc - 3 - [C07-4015 MMC] STIPULATION OF 

DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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

ORDER

Having considered the parties Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice and for good 

cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The action Leaf Lines LLC et al v. Michael D. Sage, et al, Civil Action No. 

C 07 4015 MMC is dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ 

fees and costs. 

2. This Court shall maintain jurisdiction over this case for the purpose of any 

action to enforce the Settlement Agreement. 

Dated: _____________________ ___________________________________

 The Honorable Maxine Chesney 

 United States District Judge 

3. The Court having reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and there being no

apparent need to have such Agreement filed under seal at this time, the parties' Stipulation to file the

Agreement under seal is hereby DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed to follow the procedure set

forth in Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).

May 6, 2008

Case 3:07-cv-04015-MMC Document 37 Filed 05/06/08 Page 3 of 3