Smith v. Datex-Ohmeda Inc. et al

Filing 17

STIPULATION AND ORDER to Dismiss the Complaint and Toll the Statue of Limitations. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 06/11/09. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ALTEMUS & WAGNER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1255 SACRAMENTO STREET, REDDING, CALIFORNIA 96001 TELEPHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]

Stewart C. Altemus (State Bar #98746) Attorney for Plaintiff LONNELL SMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 LONNELL SMITH, 10 11 vs. Plaintiff, Case No. 3:09-cv-01057-PJH STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AND TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

12 DATEX-OHMEDA, INC., et al 13 14 15 16 17 Defendants. ___________________________________/

Plaintiff, LONNELL SMITH, ("Plaintiff") and Defendants, DATEX-OHMEDA, INC.

18 ("Datex-Ohmeda") (erroneously sued as GE Healthcare, Inc.) and ABBOTT LABORATORIES 19 ("Abbott") by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate: 20 21 1. Dismissal of the Complaint against Datex-Ohmeda, Inc. and Abbott without prejudice. Plaintiff will file a formal dismissal without prejudice of her pending Complaint against

22 Datex-Ohmeda and Abbott within twenty (20) days following entry of the Court's order 23 implementing this stipulation. 24 25 26 27 28 2. Agreement for Future Re-service of the Complaint. If Plaintiff subsequently elects to pursue her Complaint against Datex-Ohmeda and/or Abbott she must do so within sixty (60) calendar days following a settlement of, or final judgment in, Lonnell Smith v. St. Joseph Hospital, et al, Case No. DR080194, Humboldt County, or the dismissal shall be deemed to be with prejudice. The parties further stipulate that, in defending any such action,
S t ip u la t io n & Order re Dismissal, Case No. 3:09-cv-01057-PJH

1

1 neither Datex-Ohmeda nor Abbott will assert any statute of limitations defense that did not exist as 2 of the original date of the service of the above-entitled Complaint. 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 ORDERED. 06/11/09 Dated: ____________________. herein. Dated: June 9, 2009. ALTEMUS & WAGNER By: /s/ Stewart C. Altemus E T TA Attorney for Plaintiff, Lonnell Smith [PROPOSED] ORDER Dated: June 9, 2009. By: /s/ Clement L. Glynn Attorneys for Defendant Datex-Ohmeda (erroneously sued as GE Healthcare, Inc.) GORDON & REES, LLP Brian J. Mooney 275 Battery Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA By: /s/ Brian J. Mooney Attorneys for Defendant Abbott Laboratories ATTESTATION I, Stewart C. Altemus, hereby attest that, pursuant to General Order 45, Section XB, concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories Dated: June 9, 2009. SO STIPULATED. Dated: June 9, 2009. ALTEMUS & WAGNER Stewart C. Altemus 1255 Sacramento Street Redding CA 96001 By: /s/ Stewart C. Altemus Attorneys for Plaintiff, Lonnell Smith GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP Clement L. Glynn One Walnut Creek Center 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500 Walnut Creek, CA 94596

S DISTRICT

C

RT U O

UNIT ED

S

S t ip u la t io n & Order re Dismissal, Case No. 3:09-cv-01057-PJH N

ER

F D IS T IC T O R

A

C

LI
2

FO

____________________________ ilton The Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton s J. Ham Phylli Judge United States District Judge

R NIA

NO

RT

H