Hosler et al v. Guidant Corporation et al

Filing 11

STIPULATION and ORDER 9 signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. on 9/8/06 ORDERING the deadline for Dfts to file an answer shall be as follows: if the case is not remanded to state court, and is transferred to the MDL court, anyresponse will be due pu rsuant to a deadline set by the MDL court. If the case is not remanded and not transferred to the MDL court, any response will be due 30 days after the decision by the JPML denying transfer to the MDL court, or if the case is remanded, any response w ill be due 30 days after the remand decision by this Court. The deadline for a joint status report shall be: if the case is not remanded to state court, and is transferred to the MDL court, any joint status report will be due pursuant to a deadline set by the MDL court; or if the case is not remanded and not transferred, the joint status report will be due 30 days after this Court denies remand. All other deadlines will be set pursuant to Federal and local rule. (Krueger, M)

Hosler et al v. Guidant Corporation et al

Doc. 11

Case 2:06-cv-01972-FCD-KJM 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

Document 11

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 1 of 3

Dana N. Gwaltney, SBN 209530 Sara J. Romano, SBN 227467 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 333 Bush Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants GUIDANT CORPORATION, GUIDANT SALES CORPORATION, CARDIAC PACEMAKERS, INC., and BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SACRAMENTO DIVISION) CLIFFORD HOSLER and DALE PATTON, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) GUIDANT CORPORATION; GUIDANT ) SALES CORPORATION; CARDIAC ) PACEMAKERS, INC.; BOSTON SCIENTIFIC ) CORPORATION; SUTTER SOLANO ) MEDICAL CENTER; NORTHBAY ) HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; and Does 1 ) through 100, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) Case No. 2:06-cv-01972 FCD KJM STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL DEADLINES

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their designated counsel that the deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint in this action should be extended. It is further stipulated that the deadline for the parties to submit a joint status report pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) should be extended. Defendants seek to transfer this case to the Multi-District Litigation proceeding established in the United States District Court, District of Minnesota ("MDL court"), and Plaintiffs have indicated that they will soon

108799v1

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL DEADLINES 1 CASE NO. 2:06-cv-01972 FCD KJM

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:06-cv-01972-FCD-KJM 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 DATED: September 6, 2006

Document 11

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 2 of 3

be filing a motion to remand this case to state court. Accordingly, the following deadlines will be modified as follows: The deadline for Defendants to file an answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' complaint shall be as follows: (a) if the case is not remanded to state court, and is transferred to the MDL court, any

response will be due pursuant to a deadline set by the MDL court; (b) if the case is not remanded and also is not transferred to the MDL court, any response

will be due thirty (30) days after the decision by the JPML denying transfer to the MDL court; or (c) if the case is remanded, any response will be due thirty (30) days after the remand

decision by this Court. The deadline for the parties to prepare and submit a joint status report shall be as follows: (a) if the case is not remanded to state court, and is transferred to the MDL court, any

joint status report will be due pursuant to a deadline set by the MDL court; or (b) if the case is not remanded and also is not transferred to the MDL court, the joint

status report will be due thirty (30) days after this Court denies remand. All other deadlines will be set pursuant to Federal and local rule. IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Respectfully submitted, SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. By:____/s/ Dana N. Gwaltney___________________ DANA N. GWALTNEY SARA J. ROMANO Attorneys for Defendants GUIDANT CORPORATION, GUIDANT SALES CORPORATION, CARDIAC PACEMAKERS, INC. and BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION

108799v1

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL DEADLINES 2 CASE NO. 2:06-cv-01972 FCD KJM

Case 2:06-cv-01972-FCD-KJM 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 Dated: September 8, 2006 DATED: September 6, 2006

Document 11

Filed 09/08/2006

Page 3 of 3

Respectfully submitted, GILLIN, JACOBSON, ELLIS & LARSEN By:____/s/ Kristin Lucey_____________________ LUKE ELLIS KRISTIN LUCEY Attorneys for Plaintiffs CLIFFORD HOSLER and DALE PATTON

ORDER Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. THE HONORABLE FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

108799v1

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL DEADLINES 3 CASE NO. 2:06-cv-01972 FCD KJM