Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05000/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-05000-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

BRAYTON@PURCELL.

PROOF OF SERVICE

2
I am employed in the County of Marin, State of California. | am over the age of 18
3 | years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 222 Rush Landing Road,
Novato, California 94948-6169.
4
On December 13, 2005, I served the attached:
5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND REMAND TO
6] STATE COURT
7] on the interested parties in this action by transmitting a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope,
and each envelope addressed as follows:
8
BOEING COMPANY
9} c/o Bo W. Kim, Esq.
Perkins Coie
10]} 1620 26" Street, 6" Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90404-4013
11] (10) 788-9900
(310) 788-3399 Fax
12
13]) XXX (BY MAIL) Iam readily familiar with the business practice at my place of
business for collection and processing of correspondence for delivery by mail.
14 Correspondence so collected and processed is deposited with the United States
Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business. On the
15 above date the said envelope was collected for the United States Postal Service
following ordinary business practices.
16
17
Executed this December 13, 2005 at Novato, California.
18

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
19]| foregoing is true and correct.

20 n ay

21 a min "4 Ct
JANE A. EHN!

22

23 ‘.

24 Roger Henry v. Asbestos Defendants (BP)
USDC C05-5000 PJH

GAPOS\MULTIP.WPD. 1

12/12/05 MON 13:08 Fax

12/69/2885 14:53 4158981247 BRAYTON PURCELL PAGE oo

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685
LLOYD F. LEROY, ESQ., S.B. #203502

21) NANCY B, THORINGTON, ESQ,, S.B. #199721
BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP
3) ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 Rush Landing Road
4]] P.O. Box 6169
Novato, California 94948-6169
5] (415) 898-1555
5 415) 898-1247 Fax
7 Attomeys for Plaintiff
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 | ROGER HENRY, No. C-05-5000 PJH
12 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED}
| ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND
13 REMAND TO STATE COURT
14 |] vs.
18 | ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B@P),
16 Defendants }
17} THE BOBING COMPANY,
18 Removing Defendant.
19 )
20 WHEREAS:
21 1. This case was originally filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San]

22 || Francisco; and

23 2. Defendant THE BORING COMPANY filed its Notice of Removal on December 5,
24 || 2005, alleging that this Court has removal jurisdiction pursuant to the federal officer removal
25 || statute, 28 U.S.C. §1442(a)(1), on the ground that it was acting under the directiot of agencies
26 | and officers of the United States government in committing the acts that Plaintiff complains of,
27] and

284

e477 for Dinas BOD, — —
U D [PI s EB Al R STATES!
5 CUSSOO PIN | AND

12/12/05 MON 13:09 FAX

12/69/2085

Can Aw PF YN

- oe an mee
BRRaR2RBBE BSBA ATES R STS

@oo3

14353 4158981247 BRAYTON PURCELL PAGE 83/64

3. The removal by defendant THE BOEING COMPANY did not require the consent of
other party defendsnts and no consent or joinder in the removal was submitted to the court; and

4. The parties have agreed to and do hereby stipulate that defendant THE BOEING
COMPANY should be dismissed with prejudice from the above entiticd action, pursuant to
FRCP 41 (a)(2), each party to bear its own costs;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action through their
designated counsel, that because the sole removing defendant is hereby dismissed with prejudice,
no basis currently exists for this court to exercise jurisdiction over this action and remand to the
Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco is appropriate.

Accordingly, the parties petition this court for an order dismissing defendant THE
BOEING COMPANY from this action, and remanding the action to the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Francisco.

Dated: December 12,2005 BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP

By:
Nancy BYTborin;
Attomeys for Plaint
PERKINS COIE LLP

xO

-

By:

Attomeys for Defendant
THE BOEING COMPANY

a

Co Oo ND

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

Having considered the stipulation between the plaintiff and the sole removing
party, and good cause appearing:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the sole removing defendant, THE BOEING
COMPANY, is dismissed with prejudice from this action pursuant to FRCP 41 (a)(2), each party
to bear its own costs; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the sole removing defendant having been
dismissed with prejudice from the case, no basis currently exists for removal of this action from
the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, and this matter should be and
is, therefore, remanded to that court immediately.

12/14/05
Dated

United States District Judge

K Mnjuredi24198\USDC-Stip for Dismiss BOE & Remand.

3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND REMAND TO STATE COURT
No. C-05-5000 PJH