Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05690/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05690-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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 

____________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 – CASE NO. 3:06-cv-05690 PJH Amended Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Allowing Plaintiff to 

File Amended Motion To Dismiss 

DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP 

WILLIAM GAUS (SBN 054999) 

EMAIL: wg@dillinghammurphy.com 

BARBARA L. HARRIS CHIANG (SBN 206892) 

EMAIL: bhc@dillinghammurphy.com 

225 Bush Street, 6th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94104-4207 

Telephone: (415) 397-2700 

Facsimile: (415) 397-3300 

Attorneys For Plaintiff and 

Counterdefendant Matthew Frushell 

STANZLER FUNDERBURK & CASTELLON LLP 

JORDAN S. STANZLER (SBN 54620) 

EMAIL jstanzler@sfcfirm.com 

180 Montgomery St., Suite 1700

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 677-1450

Facsimile: (415) 677-1476 

 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

 Blackstone Medical, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MATTHEW FRUSHELL, 

 PLAINTIFF, 

v. 

BLACKSTONE MEDICAL, INC., a 

corporation, and DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, 

 DEFENDANTS. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM 

CASE NO. 3:06-cv-05690 PJH 

AMENDED STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER ALLOWING 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

 Plaintiff and Counterdefendant MATTHEW FRUSHELL (“Frushell”) and Defendant and 

Counterclaimant BLACKSTONE MEDICAL, INC. ("Blackstone Medical") hereby stipulate, 

through their counsel of record to allow Frushell to file Plaintiff’s Amended Motion To Dismiss 

Defendant’s Counterclaim For Failure To State A Claim On Which Relief May Be Granted 

Case 4:06-cv-05690-PJH Document 21 Filed 12/06/06 Page 1 of 3
 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 

____________________________________________________________________________

Page 2 – CASE NO. 3:06-cv-05690 PJH Amended Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Allowing Plaintiff to 

File Amended Motion To Dismiss 

Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Motion, (attached as Exhibit A) in order 

to delete references to Edwards v. Arthur Anderson, LLP (2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 603. The 

California Supreme Court granted review of Edwards on November 29, 2006, making it 

inappropriate for citation pursuant to Local Rule 3-4(e). 

 In order to comply with Local Rule 3-4(e) the following amendments have been made to 

the Frushell’s opening brief: 

• Edwards v. Arthur Anderson, LLP (2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 603 has been deleted from the 

Table of Authorities; 

• Page 3, line 27-Page 4, line 8 previously stated: 

“State and federal courts in California have repeatedly held “section 16600 to be an expression 

of public policy which ensures that every citizen retains the right to pursue any lawful 

employment and enterprise of his or her choice.” Edwards v. Arthur Anderson, LLP (2006) 

142 Cal. App. 4th 603, 614, Latona v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 1999) 82 F. Supp. 

2d 1089, 1093-1094 (“This protection against restraint of employment qualifies as a strong 

public policy in California”); Scott v. Snelling and Snelling, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 1990) 732 F. Supp. 

1034, 1039-40; Kelton v. Stravinski (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 941, 946; Application Group, 

Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc., (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 881, 900 (“[S]ection 16600 reflects a strong 

public policy of the State of California.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).” 

• Page 3, line 27 – Page 4, line 7 now states: 

“State and federal courts in California have repeatedly held section 16600 to be an expression 

of public policy ensuring that citizens retains the right to pursue any employment of his or her 

choice. Latona v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 1999) 82 F. Supp. 2d 1089, 1093-

1094 (“This protection against restraint of employment qualifies as a strong public policy in 

California”); Scott v. Snelling and Snelling, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 1990) 732 F. Supp. 1034, 1039-40; 

Kelton v. Stravinski (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 941, 946; Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter 

Group, Inc., (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 881, 900 (“[S]ection 16600 reflects a strong public policy 

of the State of California.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).” 

• The last paragraph of the brief, page 8, line 27 through page 9, line 10, which discussed 

Edwards, has been deleted in the amended papers. 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 4:06-cv-05690-PJH Document 21 Filed 12/06/06 Page 2 of 3
 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 

____________________________________________________________________________

Page 3 – CASE NO. 3:06-cv-05690 PJH Amended Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Allowing Plaintiff to 

File Amended Motion To Dismiss 

The foregoing stipulation was submitted to the Court on November 29, 2006. Exhibit A to 

the stipulation erroneously stated that the hearing on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for 

November 29, 2006. An amended Exhibit A (Second Amended Motion To Dismiss Defendant’s 

Counterclaim For Failure To State A Claim On Which Relief May Be Granted Memorandum Of 

Points And Authorities In Support Of Motion) is attached hereto reflecting the correct hearing 

date of December 13, 2006. 

DATED: DECEMBER 5, 2006 DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP 

WILLIAM GAUS 

BARBARA L. HARRIS CHIANG 

 BY: /S/_______________________________ ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AND 

COUNTERDEFENDANT MATTHEW FRUSHELL 

 DATED: DECEMBER 5, 2006 STANZLER FUNDERBURK & 

 CASTELLON LLP 

 JORDAN S. STANZLER 

BY: /S/__________________________________ ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT AND 

COUNTERCLAIMANT 

BLACKSTONE MEDICAL, INC. 

ORDER 

 Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Amended 

Motion To Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaim For Failure To State A Claim On Which Relief 

May Be Granted Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Motion, (attached as 

Amended Exhibit A) may be accepted for filing in order to delete references to Edwards v. Arthur 

Anderson, LLP (2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 603. 

Dated: ________________________ _______________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

12/6/06

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

Case 4:06-cv-05690-PJH Document 21 Filed 12/06/06 Page 3 of 3