United States District Court for the Central District of California, 2021

Origen Capital Investments II, LLC v. Carlos D. DeMattos

Origen Capital Investments II, LLC v. Carlos D. DeMattos
United States District Court for the Central District of California · Decided June 30, 2021
Origen Capital Investments II, LLC v. Carlos D. DeMattos

Trial Court Opinion

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORIGEN CAPITAL INVESTMENTS II,

LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability Case No. CV 20-2384-MWF (SKx) company;

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION Plaintiff, FOR DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE, APPROVAL OF v. SETTLEMENT AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

CARLOS D. DEMATTOS AKA

CARLOS MIGUEL DIDIER DE

MATTOS FERNANDES AKA

CARLOS DIDIER DEMATTOS, an individual; DANIEL M DEMATTOS, an individual; MATTHEW D DEMATTOS, an individual; ELENA DEMATTOS, an individual; MARCOS M DEMATTOS, an individual and as Trustee of the

DEMATTOS MARCOS TRUST, the

DEMATTOS 2012 TRUST, and the

DEMATTOS INDUSTRIAL TRUST; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

l The Stipulation of the Parties, Plaintiff Origen Capital Investments II, LLC (‘Plaintiff’) and Defendants Carlos D. DeMattos, Daniel M. DeMattos, Matthew D. DeMattos, Elena DeMattos, and Marcos M. DeMattos (individually and as Trustee of the DeMattos Marcos Trust, DeMattos 2012 Trust, and the DeMattos Industrial Trust) (collectively, “Defendants’’) for approval of the settlement agreement, dismissal with prejudice of this proceeding and for this Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement having been presented to the Court and good cause appearing therefore,

It Is Hereby Ordered As Follows: l. The Settlement Agreement, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 1s approved.

2. This case is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

3. Notwithstanding dismissal of this case with prejudice, pursuant to Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), this Court shall retain jurisdiction subsequent to this dismissal for the purpose of enforcing the Parties’ Settlement Agreement.

4. Except in the event that the Court must enforce the Parties’ Settlement Agreement, each party shall bear its own fees and costs associated with this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. so Dated: June 30, 2021 Hele. Mh Bod A, United States Distt ce"

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.