Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01237/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01237-33/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FORTE CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

HARRIS CRAMER, LLP, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-1237 EMC

ORDER RE JOINT LETTER OF

FEBRUARY 18, 2010

(Docket No. 350)

On February 18, 2010, the parties submitted a joint letter regarding their continuing dispute

over costs owed to vendors. Having reviewed the joint letter, as well as Forte’s subsequent letter of

March 1, 2010, the Court hereby rules as follows.

(1) Based on the joint letter, it appears that the parties have reached a resolution with

respect to the following vendors: Dan Mottaz Video; S&R Services; Summit Court Reporting;

Conference Call America; Quest Discovery Services; McCorkle Video; and Quality Control

Documents.

(2) With respect to each of the following vendors, Forte shall provide a declaration

certifying that the vendor confirmed that no additional monies are owed and/or that the payment

made by Forte was accepted as payment in full: Advanced Attorney Services; Ivize; Lyon

Reporting; and Once Source Delivery Service. The declaration shall be filed within a week of the

date of this order. The Court emphasizes that the declaration must be submitted under penalty of

perjury and forewarns Forte that, should any of these vendors subsequently seek payment from

Case 3:07-cv-01237-EMC Document 352 Filed 03/03/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

TTLG with respect to services provided to Forte (including interest or late charges), the Court may

require Forte to indemnify TTLG should TTLG pay any of the monies sought to the vendors.

(3) With respect to Regus, Forte shall provide a declaration certifying that the vendor

agreed to a payment plan and that, once all payments are made pursuant to the plan, there are no

additional monies to be paid by Forte to the vendor. The declaration shall be filed within a week

of the date of this order.

(4) With respect to Grossman & Cotter, the Court is satisfied that, based on the e-mail

correspondence between Forte and Grossman & Cotter, the vendor agreed to a payment plan. See

Joint letter, Ex. 4.

(5) The joint letter indicates that issues remain unresolved with respect to the costs owed

to Atkinson Baker and Video Depositions. The Court orders the parties to file a joint letter

within a week of the date of this order providing an update as to the costs owed to these

vendors. If Forte takes the position that the vendors have not been cooperative (e.g., by not

returning telephone calls), then it shall provide a declaration providing specific facts as to the efforts

made to work with the vendors to resolve any dispute over costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2010

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01237-EMC Document 352 Filed 03/03/10 Page 2 of 2