Coleman et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation

Filing 68

STIPULATION and ORDER continuing scheduling conference. The Scheduling Conference currently set for 12/20/2011, is CONTINUED to 1/26/2012, at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 7 (SKO) before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/7/2011. (Timken, A)

5

Eva M. Weiler (SBN: 233942)
[e-mail]
Natasha L. Mosley (SBN: 246352)
[e-mail]
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1600
Irvine, California 92614-2546
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 949.475.0016

6

Attorneys for Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation

1
2
3
4

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT

10
11

PAMELA COLEMAN, an individual,
Plaintiff,

12
13

vs.

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION, a Massachusetts
15 corporation, and DOE
MANUFACTURERS one through one
16 hundred,
14

Defendants.

17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:10-CV-01968-OWW-SKO
Mag. Judge: Hon. Sheila K. Oberto
Dept.: 3
STIPULATION AND JOINT
REQUEST TO CONTINUE
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
AND ORDER
Complaint filed: 10/20/2010
Trial Date: None set

21
22
23

TO THE COURT AND ALL ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Plaintiff Pamela Coleman and Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation

24

(“BSC”), by and through their counsel of record, stipulate to and jointly request a

25

continuance of the scheduling conference based on the following:

26
27
28

1.

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on October 20, 2010 and BSC

was served with the complaint on or about December 29, 2010.
2.

The Court set a scheduling conference for April 6, 2011. (Doc. No. 6.)
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

104076 V1

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

3.

BSC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on February 16, 2011.

(Doc. No. 9.) Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the
scheduling conference from April 6, 2011 to April 20, 2011 in light of BSC’s pending
motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 16.)
4.

On April 11, 2011, the Court granted BSC’s motion to dismiss with leave

to amend. (See Doc. No. 29.)
5.

On April 12, 2011, the Court issued a minute order setting a scheduling

conference for July 22, 2011. (Doc. No. 26.)
6.

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on June 17, 2011. (Doc. No.

31.) On July 7, 2011 BSC filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and
the motion was set to be heard on August 15, 2011. (Doc. No. 34.)
7.

On July 11, 2011, the parties stipulated to continue the scheduling

conference to August 26, 2011 to allow BSC’s motion to dismiss to be heard prior to
the scheduling conference and the submission of the joint scheduling conference
statement. The Court issued an order granting the stipulation and setting the
scheduling Conference for August 26, 2011. (See Doc. Nos. 37, 38.)
8.

On August 2, 2011, the Court issued a minute order continuing the

hearing on BSC’s motion to dismiss from August 15, 2011 to August 22, 2011. On
August 16, 2011, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the court continued the
scheduling conference from August 26, 2011 to October 20, 2011 in light of the new
hearing date for BSC’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 46.)
9.

On August 22, 2011, the Court granted BSC’s motion to dismiss the first

amended complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. No. 51.)
10.

On September 21, 2011 the October 20 scheduling conference date was

vacated due to the impending retirement of the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger. (See
Doc. No. 52.)

27
28

2
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
104076 V1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11.

On September 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed her second amended complaint.

(Doc. No. 53.)
12.

On October 24, 2011, the Court reset the scheduling conference to

November 22, 2011 before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto.
13.

On October 24, 2011, the parties received notice this case had been

assigned to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill. (Doc. No. 57.)
14.

On October 26, 2011, BSC filed a motion to dismiss the second amended

complaint. (Doc. No. 58.) The motion was set for hearing on December 1, 2011
before the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill.
15.

On November 2, 2011, this Court, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation,

11

continued the scheduling conference to December 20, 2011 pending a ruling BSC’s

12

motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 60.) The parties’ joint scheduling report would be due

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

on December 13, 2011.
16.

On November 28, 2011, the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill issued a

minute order vacating the December 1 hearing date and taking BSC’s motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint under submission.
17.

All parties have agreed and respectfully request that the scheduling

conference be continued to January 20, 2012, or to a date preferred by this Court, in
order for Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ Opposition thereto to be
considered and ruled upon by the Court. The parties also request that their joint
scheduling report be due January 13, 2012.
18.

There is good cause to continue the scheduling conference and the

submission of the joint scheduling conference statement until after the Honorable
Lawrence J. O’Neill issues a ruling on BSC’s motion to dismiss.

25
26
27
28

3
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
104076 V1

1
2
3
4

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the
scheduling conference currently set for December 20, 2011, be continued to January
20, 2012, or a date more convenient for the Court, and the parties’ joint scheduling
conference statement be due on January 13, 2012.

5
6

Dated: December 6, 2011

Respectfully Submitted,

7

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
8
9

By:
10
11

/s/ Natasha L. Mosley
Natasha L. Mosley
Attorneys for Defendant
Boston Scientific Corporation

12
13

Dated: December 6, 2011

GIARDI KEESE

14

By:

15
16
17
18

/s/Amanda Kent
(authorized on December 6, 2011)
Thomas V. Girardi
Amy F. Solomon
Michael Kowsari
Amanda Kent
Attorneys for Plaintiff

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
104076 V1

1

ORDER

2
3

The parties’ stipulated request for a continuance of the December 20, 2011,

4

scheduling conference is GRANTED IN PART. While the request for a continuance

5

is granted, the Court cannot accommodate the date proposed by the parties.

6
7
8

Accordingly, the Scheduling Conference currently set for December 20, 2011,
is CONTINUED to January 26, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. The Joint Scheduling Report is due
on or before January 19, 2012.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 7, 2011

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

ie14hje

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
104076 V1