Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Valencia v. Merck & Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA / FRESNO DIVISION


April 14, 2009

ABARCA, RAUL VALENCIA, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MERCK & CO., INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH AND SIXTH CLAIMS

The parties hereto enter into this stipulation for the purpose of allowing them to focus on issues that may enhance their ability to settle all remaining claims presented by plaintiffs against the stipulating defendants. By entering into this stipulation, the parties acknowledge that they are significantly changing and modifying their discovery effort necessary to prepare for trial and therefore all agree that this stipulation will be binding and cannot be revoked.

All plaintiffs by and through their attorneys, Michael G. Marderosian of Marderosian, Runyon, Cercone, Lehman & Armo, Michael J. Bidart of Shernoff, Bidart, Darras & Echeverria, Thomas V. Girardi of Girardi & Keese, and Jack Silver of the Law Offices of Jack Silver (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiffs") and defendants County of Merced by and through its attorneys Terry L. Allen of Allen, Proietti & Fagalde and Jan A. Greben of Greben & Associates (hereinafter referred to as "County"), City of Merced by and through its attorneys Gene Tanaka of Best, Best & Krieger, LLP (hereinafter referred to as "City"), Merced Irrigation District and Merced Irrigation District Drainage District No. 1 by and through their attorneys Robert H. Greenfield of Greenfield-Hardy and Jeffrey F. Oneal of LaMore, Brazier, Riddle & Giampaoli (hereinafter referred to as "MID and MIDDD No. 1"), Franklin County Water District by and through its attorneys Joseph Salazar, Jr. of Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith (hereinafter referred to as "FCWD") and Meadowbrook Water Company by and through its attorneys Gary Drummond of Stevens, Drummond & Gifford (hereinafter referred to as "MWC") collectively referred to as "stipulating defendants" HEREBY STIPULATE:

1. That plaintiffs' First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth claims set forth in their Fifth Amended Complaint on file herein are dismissed with prejudice with each side bearing their own attorney's fees and costs including expert fees that pertain to the claims to be dismissed;

2. The parties enter into this stipulation to allow them to focus their attention on resolving the remaining claims in this case;

3. The stipulating defendants will withdraw the following motions related to the claims to be dismissed currently pending before the court: City of Merced's Motion to Dismiss CWA and RCRA Claims; County of Merced's Motion to Dismiss CWA and RCRA Claims; MID and MIDD No. 1's Motion to Dismiss CWA and RCRA Claims; and FCWD's Motion to Dismiss CWA and RCRA Claims; and the Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories, Set One, filed by the MID and all joinders filed by the stipulating defendants;

4. The parties acknowledge that the remaining claims against these stipulating defendants are so related to the remaining federal claims against non-stipulating defendants, that the remaining claims form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution and 29 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Therefore, the parties herein agree they will not contest this court's continued jurisdiction as to the remaining claims;

5. This stipulation shall be filed with the Court within five (5) days after execution by all parties hereto; and

6. This stipulation represents the entire, final agreement between the parties relating to the subject matters of the stipulation and this stipulation may only be amended by a writing executed by all parties. This stipulation may not be contradicted by evidence of prior, contemporaneous, or subsequent oral agreements of the parties; there are no unwritten oral agreements between the parties.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090414

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.