Williams v. Mast Biosurgery USA, Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER of Court directing reinstatement, dismissal and judgment as to certain defendants. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 5/7/2009. (nbp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION WANDA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. MAST BIOSURGERY USA, INC., a wholly owned subsidiary of MAST BIOSURGERY AG, the parent company, and MAST BIOSURGERY AG, Defendants. ______________________________ : : : : : Civil Action No. 7:08-cv-114(HL) : : : : : : : : ORDER In an Order entered on May 4, 2009 (Doc. 15), this case was dismissed in its enti rety without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to contact the Court as directed. Judgment in favor of Defendants was subsequently entered on May 5, 2009 (Doc. 16). The docket shows that Defendant Mast Biosurgery USA, Inc. was served and has filed an Answer (Doc. 11). In a conversation with Plaintiff's counsel, the Court was informed that counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendant Mast Biosurgery USA, Inc. agree that the case against Mast Biosurgery USA, Inc. should move forward. In that same conversation, Plaintiff's counsel explained why he did not contact the Court as directed. The Court is satisfied with his explanation. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff's case against Defendant Mast Biosurgery USA is hereby reinstated. The case against Defendant Mast Biosurgery AG will remai n dismissed. The judgment entered in favor of Defendants (Doc. 16) is vacated, and judgment shall be re-entered in favor of Defendant Mast Biosurgery AG only. SO ORDERED, this the 7th day of May, 2009. s/ Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE mbh 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?