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)

Download PDF
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?