Coleman et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation

Filing 71

STIPULATION and ORDER re request to continue the scheduling conference. The Scheduling Conference currently set for 1/26/2012, is CONTINUED to 4/3/2012, at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 7 (SKO) before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. The parties' joint scheduling report shall be filed on or before 3/27/2012. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/9/2012. (Timken, A)

1 Eva M. Weiler (SBN: 233942)

[e-mail]

2 Natasha L. Mosley (SBN: 246352)

[e-mail]

3 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.

5 Park Plaza, Suite 1600

4 Irvine, California 92614-2546

Telephone: [phone]
949.475.0016

5 Facsimile:

6 Attorneys for Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT

10
11 PAMELA COLEMAN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

12
13

vs.

14 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC

CORPORATION, a Massachusetts

15 corporation, and DOE

MANUFACTURERS one through one

16 hundred,

Defendants.

17
18
19
20

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

Case No. 1:10-CV-01968-AWI-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:
24

Plaintiff Pamela Coleman and Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation

25 (“BSC”), by and through their counsel of record, stipulate to and jointly request a
26 continuance of the scheduling conference based on the following:
27
28
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
107985 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
27

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.)

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.

28

On September 21, 2011 the October 20 scheduling conference date was
2
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

107985 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
27

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

continued the scheduling conference to December 20, 2011 pending a ruling BSC’s
motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 60.) The parties’ joint scheduling report would be due
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.

On December 7, 2011, this Court, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation,

continued the scheduling conference to January 26, 2012 pending a ruling on BSC’s
motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 68.) The Court also ordered that the parties’ joint
scheduling report is due on or before January 19, 2012.
18.

As of the filing of this stipulation, the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill has

not issued a ruling on BSC’s motion to dismiss.
19.

All parties have agreed and respectfully request that the scheduling

conference be continued to April 3, 2012, or to a date preferred by this Court, in order
for Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ Opposition thereto to be considered

28

3
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
107985 V1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

and ruled upon by the Court. The parties also request that their joint scheduling report
be due March 27, 2012.
20.

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.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the
scheduling conference currently set for January 26, 2012, be continued to April 3,
2012, or a date more convenient for the Court, and the parties’ joint scheduling
conference statement be due on March 27, 2012.

10
11

Dated: January 9, 2012

Respectfully Submitted,

12

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
13
14

By:
15
16

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

17

Dated: January 9, 2012

GIARDI KEESE

18
19

By:
20
21
22

/s/Amanda Kent
(authorized on January 6, 2012)
Thomas V. Girardi
Amy F. Solomon
Michael Kowsari
Amanda Kent
Attorneys for Plaintiff

23
24
25
26
27
28

4
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
107985 V1

1

ORDER

2
3

Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation, the scheduling conference currently set for

4

January 26, 2012, is hereby continued to April 3, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. The parties’ Joint

5

Scheduling Report shall be filed on or before March 27, 2012.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 9, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST TO CONTINUE
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
107985 V1