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)

Download PDF
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?