Stark et al v. McKesson Corporation et al
Filing
14
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 1/24/17 ORDERING that McKesson shall have until 14 days after the Court issues an order on Plaintiff's motion to remand to respond to the Complaint. In the event Plaintiffs do not file a motion to remand, McKesson shall have until 3/2/2017 to respond to the Complaint. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ERIN M. BOSMAN (CA SBN 204987)
EBosman@mofo.com
JULIE Y. PARK (CA SBN 259929)
JuliePark@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
12531 High Bluff Drive
San Diego, California 92130-2040
Telephone: 858.720.5100
Facsimile: 858.720.5125
Attorneys for Defendant
MCKESSON CORPORATION
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
DAVID STARK; BILLY SMALL, JR.;
LINDA WHITE, Individually and as
Successor-In-Interest of the ESTATE OF
CHARLES WHITE; GAYLON
MURRAY; RUTH KENNON,
Individually and as Successor-In-Interest
of the ESTATE OF JAMES KENNON;
and NANCY HOOSER,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00095-MCE-CKD
STIPULATION AND ORDER
EXTENDING DEFENDANT
MCKESSON CORPORATION’S
TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT
Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.
v.
MCKESSON CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation; BRISTOLMYERS SQUIBB, a Delaware
corporation; and PFIZER, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive,
21
Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2:17-cv-00095-MCE-CKD
sd-693372
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING
TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
1
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 144, plaintiffs David Stark et al. (“Plaintiffs”)
2
and defendant McKesson Corporation (“McKesson”), through their undersigned
3
counsel, hereby stipulate, subject to the Court’s approval, as follows:
4
5
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this case in the Superior Court
for the County of San Joaquin on November 10, 2016;
6
7
WHEREAS, McKesson was served with the Complaint on December 23,
2016;
8
9
WHEREAS, defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer Inc. removed this
action to this Court on January 17, 2017;
10
11
WHEREAS, McKesson’s deadline to respond to the Complaint, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and 81(c), is January 24, 2017;
12
13
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs intend to file a motion to remand this action to state
court;
14
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and McKesson agree that extending McKesson’s
15
deadline until the jurisdictional issue is resolved will conserve the parties’ and
16
judicial resources;
17
WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), parties may agree to an
18
extension of time, provided the stipulation is approved by the Court if the extension
19
of time is greater than 28 days;
20
WHEREAS, the extension proposed herein will not alter the date of any
21
event or deadline already fixed by Court order, including the Initial Pretrial
22
Scheduling Order (ECF No. 2); and
23
24
25
WHEREAS, no previous extensions of time have been obtained with respect
to this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, in the interest of judicial economy and good cause
26
showing, the parties, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby
27
agree and stipulate, and the Court hereby orders, as follows:
28
2:17-cv-00095-MCE-CKD
sd-693372
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING
TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT *
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
McKesson shall have until 14 days after the Court issues an order on
Plaintiff’s motion to remand to respond to the Complaint.
2.
In the event Plaintiffs do not file a motion to remand, McKesson shall
have until March 2, 2017 to respond to the Complaint.
Dated: January 23, 2017
7
By: /s/ Erin M. Bosman
Erin M. Bosman
8
Attorneys for Defendant
MCKESSON CORPORATION
9
10
11
Dated: January 23, 2017
12
14
16
17
KIESEL LAW LLP
By: /s/ Melanie M. Palmer
Melanie M. Palmer
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
13
15
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 24, 2017
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2:17-cv-00095-MCE-CKD
sd-693372
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDI
TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAIN
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?