Siemens Industry Inc v. Monticello Arkansas, City of
Filing
103
STIPULATED ORDER OF NONSUIT OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO'S CLAIMS AGAINST SIEMENDS, A.G. The Court hereby approves and will enforce the terms of the foregoing stipulations and agreements in each, every, and all respects. Therefore, the claims asserted by the City of Monticello against Siemens A.G. by way of counterclaim filed herein are hereby nonsuited and dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 3/16/2016. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC.
vs.
PLAINTIFF/
COUNTER-DEFENDANT
NO. 5:15-cv-00127 DPM/JTK
DEFENDANT/
COUNTER-CLAIMANT
CITY OF MONTICELLO, ARKANSAS
vs.
THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT
SIEMENS A.G.
STIUPLATED ORDER OF NONSUIT
OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO'S
CLAIMS AGAINST SIEMENS, A.G.
Based on the stipulation and agreement of the City of Monticello and Siemens A.G. to
the terms of this Order, the Court, being sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows:
The City of Monticello has moved to nonsuit its claims against Siemens A.G., with the
consent and agreement of Siemens A.G.
The City and Siemens A.G. have stipulated and agreed that the City retains and has the
right under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-126 and other applicable law to refile its claims against
Siemens A.G. within one (1) year following the entry date of this Order. Siemens A.G. has
stipulated and agreed that the City's claims filed against Siemens A.G. herein were not a
"procedural ploy" as defined in Biby v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 629 F.2d 1289 (8th Cir. 1980),
and further discussed in Chandler v. Roy, 272 F.3d 1057 (8 1h Cir. 2001), and that the City retains
its right provided for in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-126. The City served Siemens A.G. with its
-1-
counterclaims and intended to proceed, and did in fact proceed, with the case in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division.
By entering this
stipulation, Siemens A.G. does not waive its objection that it is not subject to personal
jurisdiction in this action or any later-filed action arising out of the same series of transactions or
occurrences involved in this action.
The City and Siemens A.G. have stipulated and agreed that should the City subsequently
refile its claims against Siemens A.G. within one (1) year of the entry of this Order that Siemens
A.G. will be barred from seeking or obtaining payment of any part of the costs of this proceeding
under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(d) or otherwise.
The City and Siemens A.G. have stipulated and agreed that this nonsuit/dismissal of the
City's claims against Siemens A.G. shall in no way affect the claims of the City against Siemens
Industry, Inc., which shall remain pending for decision/trial.
The Court hereby approves and will enforce the terms of the foregoing stipulations and
agreements in each, every and all respects.
Therefore, the claims asserted by the City of Monticello against Siemens A.G. by way of
counterclaim filed herein are hereby nonsuited and dismissed without prejudice.
Honornble: Price Marshall
U.S. District Court Judge
Date
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?