Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Mireya Manquero, Individually and As Successor In Interest To v. Ametek

February 8, 2011

MIREYA MANQUERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY MANQUERO; DAMIAN MANQUERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY MANQUERO; ANTONIO MANQUERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY MANQUERO; FRANCISCO MANQUERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY MANQUERO; ESTATE OF ANTHONY MANQUERO, BY AND THROUGH ITS SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, MIREYA MANQUERO, DAMIAN MANQUERO, ANTONIO MANQUERO, FRANCISCO MANQUERO. PLAINTIFFS,
v.
AMETEK INCORPORATED, A DELAWARE CORPORATION; AND DOES 1- 10, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



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

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ORDER THEREON

COME NOW, the Parties herein, by and through their respective counsel of record, Tyler R. Dowdall, Esq., SAYRE & LEVITT, LLP, for Plaintiffs MIREYA MANQUERO, DAMIAN MANQUERO, ANTONIO MANQUERO, FRANCISCO MANQUERO, ESTATE OF ANTHONY MANQUERO, (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiffs"), and Gregory C. Read, Esq., SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN AND ARNOLD, LLP, for Defendant AMETEK INCORPORATED, (hereinafter "Defendant") and, with the authority of theirrespective clients, stipulate as follows:

RECITAL:

1. On February 19, 2010 plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Damages against defendant Ametek Incorporated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California with jurisdication based on diversity of citizenship in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiffs' action sounds in products liability for a death following an industrial accident involving an auger on August 30, 2009.

2. On March 26, 2010 plaintiffs and defendant filed a stipulation to extend the time of defendant Ametek to file an answer.

3. On March 29, 2010 the court entered and Order extending the time of Defendant Ametek to file an answer.

4. On May 24, 2010, Defendant Ametek filed its answer.

5. On June 30, 2010 the Court conducted a Scheduling Conference.

Counsel of record for plaintiffs and defendant highlighted a preliminary issue of central importance; a determination of whether Defendant Ametek had any involvement in the design, manufacture or installation of the auger system at issue in plaintiff's complaint.

6. Plaintiffs and Defendant met and conferred regarding a discovery schedule, and agreed that a site-inspection of the premises was necessary.

7. On or about December 2, 2010 plaintiffs, defendant, and O'Neill Winery, by and through its counsel Susan Hatmaker of Sutton Hatmaker, entered into a stipulation regarding production of documents, inspection of premises and testimony.

8. On or about December 15, 2010 plaintiffs and defendant conducted an inspection of O'Neill Winery. Plaintiffs subsequently deposed Robert Terry, maintenance manager for O'Neill Winery.

9. Through the site inspection and deposition of Mr. Terry, plaintiffs learned the identity of additional parties that need to be named defendants.

10. The parties plaintiff wishes to name as defendants are, plaintiffs are informed and believe, residents of California. If plaintiffs were to seek to amend their complaint to name the new parties, diversity would be lost and plaintiffs ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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