Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04156/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04156-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

1

2

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

C:\Documents and Settings\usdc\Local Settings\Temp\notes56FD74\USDC-Stip-Ord Remand.wpd 1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND REMAND TO STATE COURT 

C05-4156 MMC

BRAYTON

 ̃PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

P.O. BOX 6169

NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

415-898-1555

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685

LLOYD F. LEROY, ESQ., S.B. #203502

NANCY B. THORINGTON, ESQ., S.B. #199721

BRAYTON ̃PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

222 Rush Landing Road

P.O. Box 6169

Novato, California 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN McENTIRE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-4156 MMC

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF

DISMISSAL AND REMAND TO STATE

COURT

WHEREAS:

1. This case was originally filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San

Francisco; and

2. Defendant ATK Aerospace Company, Inc., now known as ATK Thiokol, Inc., filed its

Notice of Removal on October 13, 2005, alleging that this Court has removal jurisdiction pursuant to

the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. §1442(a)(1), on the ground that it was acting under the

direction of agencies and officers of the United States government in committing the acts that Plaintiff

complains of; and

3. The removal by defendant ATK Thiokol, Inc. did not require the consent of other party

defendants and no consent or joinder in the removal was submitted to the Court; and

///
1

2

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

C:\Documents and Settings\usdc\Local Settings\Temp\notes56FD74\USDC-Stip-Ord Remand.wpd 2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND REMAND TO STATE COURT 

C05-4156 MMC

4. The parties have agreed to and do hereby stipulate that defendant ATK Thiokol, Inc.

should be dismissed with prejudice from the above entitled 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 no basis currently exists for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over

this action, 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 ATK Thiokol,

Inc. with prejudice from this action, and remanding the action to the Superior Court of California for

the County of San Francisco.

Dated: November 1, 2005 BRAYTON ̃PURCELL LLP

By: /s/ Nancy B. Thorington

Attorneys for Plaintiff

REED SMITH LLP

By: /s/

Pavel Ekmekchyan

Attorneys for Defendant

ATK Aerospace Company, Inc., now known as

ATK Thiokol, Inc.
1

2

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

C:\Documents and Settings\usdc\Local Settings\Temp\notes56FD74\USDC-Stip-Ord Remand.wpd 3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND REMAND TO STATE COURT 

C05-4156 MMC

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, ATK Aerospace

Company, Inc., now known as ATK Thiokol, Inc., 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 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.

Dated: November 2, 2005

_________________________________

Maxine M. Chesney,

United States District Judge