Ricker v. Guidant Corporation

Filing 11

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS; ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE STATUS REPORT. In the event the instant action has not been transferred as of October 6, 2006, the parties shall file a joint status report on October 6, 2006. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 5, 2006. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(mmclc1, COURT STAFF)

Download PDF
Ricker v. Guidant Corporation Doc. 11 Case 3:06-cv-03922-MMC Document 11 Filed 07/05/2006 Page 1 of 4 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 Dana N. Gwaltney, SBN 209530 Sara J. Romano, SBN 227467 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 333 Bush Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 Attorneys for Defendant GUIDANT CORPORATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KENNETH B. RICKER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) GUIDANT CORPORATION; and Does 1 to 20,) inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) Case No. C-06-03922 MMC STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS; ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE STATUS REPORT IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their designated counsel that the deadlines for Defendant GUIDANT CORPORATION to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint, and for the parties to participate in any and all pretrial proceedings, will be stayed and will be set by the MDL transferee district court in the District of Minnesota ("MDL Court") that will be managing the recently-created multidistrict litigation entitled In Re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation. There are over 340 cases that have been filed in or removed to federal court against Defendant nationwide in which plaintiffs, like Kenneth B. Ricker, allege that they are seeking compensatory damages for various personal injuries allegedly caused by an implantable defibrillator. Approximately 240 of these cases have already been consolidated in In re: Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 05-1708, which is pending in the STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. C-06-3922 MMC 105128v1 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:06-cv-03922-MMC Document 11 Filed 07/05/2006 Page 2 of 4 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 United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. On November 7, 2005, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order establishing an MDL and consolidating and transferring a number of cases to the MDL Court. A copy of the Transfer Order is attached as Exhibit A. Defendant intends to submit this case to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation as a tag-along case for transfer to the MDL. Defendant expects the transfer of this case to be transferred to the MDL Court completed in the near future. There have been no previous time modifications entered in the case. The current deadline for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is July 3, 2006. The upcoming pretrial deadlines are as follows: September 1, 2006 last day to meet and confer regarding ADR process selection and proposed discovery plan; September 15, 2006 last day to complete initial disclosures and file case management conference statement and Rule 26(f) report; September 22, 2006 Initial Case Management Conference. In the short intervening time between now and the transfer of this case to the MDL Court, the time and resources of the parties and this Court should not be expended in preparing answers or other responses and participating in pretrial proceedings. Pursuant to this stipulation, the parties agree that the current deadlines for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint and for the parties to participate in pretrial proceedings are stayed and will be set by the MDL Court. IT IS SO STIPULATED. June 29, 2006 THE BRANDI LAW FIRM By: /s/ Casey A. Kaufman THOMAS J. BRANDI CASEY A. KAUFMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff KENNETH B. RICKER 105128v1 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. C-06-3922 MMC Case 3:06-cv-03922-MMC Document 11 Filed 07/05/2006 Page 3 of 4 1 June 29, 2006 2 3 By: 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 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. C-06-3922 MMC SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. /s/ Sara J. Romano DANA N. GWALTNEY SARA J. ROMANO Attorneys for Defendant GUIDANT CORPORATION 105128v1 3 Case 3:06-cv-03922-MMC Document 11 Filed 07/05/2006 Page 4 of 4 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: July 5, 2006 ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, in accordance with the agreement between the parties, and in light of the pending transfer of this case to a multidistrict litigation proceeding, that the current deadlines for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint and for the parties to participate in pretrial proceedings are stayed and will be set by the MDL transferee district court in the District of Minnesota. In the event the instant action has not been transferred as of October 6, 2006, the parties shall file a joint status report on October 6, 2006. _______________________________________ THE HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY 105128v1 4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. C-06-3922 MMC

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?