1

JOINT STIPULATION 

5:17-cv-00688-EJD

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

Joseph H. Low IV (SBN 194897)

THE LAW FIRM OF JOSEPH H. LOW IV

100 Oceangate, 12th Floor

Long Beach, CA 90802 

Telephone: (562) 901-0840

Facsimile: (562) 901-0841

joseph@jhllaw.com 

Vincent P. Circelli (Pro Hac Vice)

CIRCELLI, WALTER & YOUNG, PLLC 

500 East 4th Street, Suite 250

Fort Worth, TX 76102

Telephone: (682) 703-2019

vinny@cwylaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDDIE ADAMS, Jr., et al.

Plaintiffs,

vs.

BRG SPORTS, INC, et al.

Defendants.

CASE NO: 5:17-cv-00688-EJD

JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT 

ALL AMERICAN SPORTS 

CORPORATION AND TO TRANSFER 

THE ACTION TO THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

District Judge: Hon Edward Davila

Magistrate Judge: Hon. Howard R. Lloyd

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

The plaintiffs and the defendants, by and through their respective attorneys of record, 

hereby stipulate: (1) to the voluntary dismissal of defendant All American Sports Corporation 

without prejudice on in personam jurisdiction grounds in accordance with Civil L.R. 7-12; and 

(2) to the transfer of this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Illinois as to remaining defendants (a) BRG Sports, Inc., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406, and (b) 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPROVED

Judge Edward J. Davila

12/12/2017
2

JOINT STIPULATION 

5:17-cv-00688-EJD

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

Riddell Inc., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. In support of this stipulation, the parties state as 

follows: 

This action was filed on February 10, 2017. On May 5, 2017, the defendants moved to 

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as to defendants Riddell, Inc. and All American Sports 

Corporation (ECF No. 25), to sever the plaintiffs’ claims (ECF No. 27), and to dismiss the 

complaint for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 26). The plaintiffs opposed those motions, and on 

July 6, 2017, the plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint (ECF No. 44). This Court 

granted the motion for leave to amend and denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and to sever 

without prejudice (ECF No. 44). The plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint in this Court. 

On October 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a letter drafted to Judge Freeman in a similar case 

(Mark Adams v. Riddell, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-00457) informing that Court as well as this Court

(by copy of that correspondence) that the plaintiffs: (1) intended to move to dismiss defendant 

All American Sports Corporation; (2) would amend their complaint in the Mark Adams matter as 

well as in this matter to conform with Judge Freeman’s instructions made on the record at a 

hearing on October 5, 2017; (3) would seek transfer of this action (along with the Mark Adams 

action) against the remaining defendants to the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Illinois; and (4) stipulated to severance of the plaintiffs’ claims to take place thirty days 

after the transfer to the Northern District of Illinois (ECF No. 51). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406, the “district court of a district in which is filed a case laying 

venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer 

such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” Because BRG’s 

principal place of business is now located within the Northern District of Illinois, this action could 

have been brought there initially, making transfer to the Northern District of Illinois proper under 

28 U.S.C. § 1406. Moreover, transfer will promote the interests of justice given that it will serve 

the convenience of the parties and witnesses. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, if an action is brought in the wrong court and the court finds 

“that there is a want of jurisdiction,” a federal district court “shall, if it is in the interest of justice, 

transfer such action . . . to any other such court in which the action . . . could have been brought 
3

JOINT STIPULATION 

5:17-cv-00688-EJD

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

at the time it was filed or noticed . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Riddell, Inc. moved to dismiss on the 

grounds that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. Although plaintiffs initially opposed 

that motion, they have agreed to withdraw their opposition to that motion and to transfer the action 

to a district that has personal jurisdiction over Riddell, Inc.—which is the Northern District of 

Illinois, where Riddell, Inc. has its principal place of business. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties stipulate as follows: 

• To the voluntary dismissal of defendant All American Sports Corporation from this 

action without prejudice on in personam grounds; and

• To the transfer of this action as against the remaining defendants to the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, with transfer as to BRG Sports, Inc.

being under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, and transfer as to Riddell, Inc. being under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1631; 

Plaintiffs further agree and hereby stipulate to: 

• Amend their complaint within 30 days of transfer to conform as appropriate with 

Judge Freeman’s on-the-record instructions made at the October 5, 2017 hearing 

in Mark Adams v. Riddell, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-00457 (ECF No. 57); and

• Sever the plaintiffs’ claims from each other within 30 days of transfer.
4

JOINT STIPULATION 

5:17-cv-00688-EJD

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

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

 Dated: December 11, 2017 CIRCELLI WALTER & YOUNG, PLLC

By: /s/ Vincent Circelli

Vincent Circelli (admitted pro hac vice)

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dated: December 11, 2017 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP

__/s/ Eden M. Darrell_____________

Eden M. Darrell 

Attorney for Defendants
5

JOINT STIPULATION 

5:17-cv-00688-EJD

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

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

I, Eden M .Darrell, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file this

stipulation. In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i), I attest that counsel for the Defendants 

have concurred in this filing and consented to the use of their electronic signature.

/s/ Eden M. Darrell
6

JOINT STIPULATION 

5:17-cv-00688-EJD

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 11, 2017, the stipulation was filed with the Clerk of the 

Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to the attorneys of record in this 

case.

DATED: December 11, 2017 

By: /s/ Eden M. Darrell