Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00642/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00642-14/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Advanced Recycling Equipment, Inc.
Counter Claimant
Bio-Mass Energy Concepts, LLC
Counter Claimant
Burnham Brown
Movant
Donald Kunkel
Counter Claimant
Pacific MDF Products, Inc.
Counter Defendant

Document Text:

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 

-1- WILKE, FLEURY,

HOFFELT, GOULD &

BIRNEY, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SACRAMENTO

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & BIRNEY, LLP 

THOMAS G. REDMON (SBN 047090) 

DANIEL L. BAXTER (SBN 203862) 

400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-Second Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 441-2430 

Facsimile: (916) 442-6664 

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant 

PACIFIC MDF PRODUCTS, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PACIFIC MDF PRODUCTS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BIO-MASS ENERGY CONCEPTS, 

LLC, ADVANCED RECYCLING 

EQUIPMENT, INC. and DONALD 

KUNKEL, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:05-cv-642, LKK-JFM 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

BIO-MASS ENERGY CONCEPTS, LLC, 

and ADVANCED RECYCLING 

EQUIPMENT, 

Counter-Claimants, 

vs. 

PACIFIC MDF PRODUCTS, INC., 

Counter-Defendant. 

 

The jury having rendered a verdict in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the 

amount of $6,067,185 on June 25, 2008, and judgment having been entered herein on June 26, 

2008; 

 Defendants having timely filed motions for a new trial and/or judgment as a matter of law 

Case 2:05-cv-00642-LKK -JFM Document 307 Filed 10/08/08 Page 1 of 4
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- WILKE, FLEURY,

HOFFELT, GOULD &

BIRNEY, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SACRAMENTO

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) and 59; 

 Plaintiff having timely filed its Bill of Costs as the prevailing party in this action; 

 Plaintiff and Defendants having agreed to temporarily stay any further proceedings in this 

action to explore the possibility of a settlement in accordance with the terms and conditions set 

forth in that certain Stipulation Regarding Temporary Stay and Proceedings dated July 10, 2008 

and the Court having approved that stipulation on July 11, 2008; 

 The Court having issued an order denying Defendants’ post-trial motion on September 12, 

2008 and amending that order by order dated September 16, 2008 which stated that the 

September 12, 2008 order was issued in error and designated that order as a tentative ruling only; 

 Plaintiff and Defendants now having entered into a written settlement agreement dated 

October 6, 2008 (the "Settlement Agreement") the terms of which are to be treated by the parties 

as confidential; 

 Now therefore, the parties stipulate to the following Order: 

 1. That this action be stayed and designated as “settled and administratively closed” 

unless an event of default (defined below) shall occur. If an event of default (as defined below) 

occurs and remains uncured, Plaintiff shall have the right to file a notice, motion or other 

appropriate pleading to reopen the action and Plaintiff shall thereupon be entitled to pursue any 

and all rights and remedies related to the judgment as such rights and remedies existed 

immediately prior to the parties’ execution and the Court’s approval of this Order, including, but 

not limited to, requesting that the post-trial motions be resolved in accordance with this Court’s 

tentative ruling; 

 2. That all of Defendants’ rights, remedies and defenses shall similarly be reinstated 

in the event the action is reopened, including, but not limited to, opposing the tentative ruling and 

appealing the judgment; 

 3. That the occurrence of any of the events described below will constitute an “event 

of default” under this Order: 

 (a) Defendants fail to make any payment owed under the Settlement 

Agreement when due and such failure continues for thirty (30) days after written notice by 

Case 2:05-cv-00642-LKK -JFM Document 307 Filed 10/08/08 Page 2 of 4
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 

-3- WILKE, FLEURY,

HOFFELT, GOULD &

BIRNEY, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SACRAMENTO

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff to Defendants; 

 (b) The first two occasions during any consecutive twenty-four (24) month 

period that Plaintiff is required to serve Defendants with a thirty (30) day written notice that 

payment is due shall not be considered an event of default if payment is received within the thirty 

(30) day notice period; 

 (c) If Plaintiff is entitled, due to Defendants failure to make payments when 

due, to issue a third written notice of late payment, (whether or not payment is received within 

thirty (30) days of written notice), Defendants failure to make timely payment shall be considered 

an event of default; 

 (d) A proceeding is instituted by or against any of the Defendants seeking a 

declaration or order for relief, entailing a finding that any of the Defendants are insolvent or 

bankrupt, or seeking reorganization or liquidation or other similar relief with respect to any of the 

Defendants or any of their properties, assets or debts, or seeking the appointment of a receiver, 

trustee, custodian, liquidator, sequestrator, or similar official for Defendants or any of their 

properties or assets; or 

 (e) Any of the Defendants makes a general assignment for the benefit of 

creditors, institutes a proceeding described in subsection (d) above, or consents to any such 

declaration or order finding relief or appointment described in subsection (d) above. 

 Upon the occurrence of the event of default described above, the full unpaid 

amount under the Settlement Agreement shall automatically become due and payable and 

Plaintiff may exercise any and all other rights or remedies available under this Order or 

referenced in the Settlement Agreement. 

Case 2:05-cv-00642-LKK -JFM Document 307 Filed 10/08/08 Page 3 of 4
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 

-4- WILKE, FLEURY,

HOFFELT, GOULD &

BIRNEY, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SACRAMENTO

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

 4. The Court does not make any finding of fact or reach any conclusion of law as to 

the rights and remedies of the parties pursuant to the Settlement Agreement or this Stipulation and 

Order. 

Dated: October 6, 2008 WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, 

 GOULD & BIRNEY 

 By: __/s/_________________________________

 THOMAS G. REDMON 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Dated: October 6, 2008 BURNHAM BROWN 

 By: ___/s/_______________________________

 ROBERT M. BODZIN 

 Attorney for Defendants 

SO ORDERED, by the Court, as of this 7th day of October, 2008. 

 

1388862_1 

Case 2:05-cv-00642-LKK -JFM Document 307 Filed 10/08/08 Page 4 of 4