Rosales v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation et al

Filing 11

STIPULATION AND ORDER extending time, to 30 days after remand order/transfer order, for defendant to file responsive pleading; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 1/9/2009. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

ALAN J. LAZARUS (SBN #129767) [e-mail] KRISTA L. COSNER (SBN #213338) [e-mail] DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 50 Fremont Street 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2235 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION dba GLAXOSMITHKLINE and MCKESSON CORPORATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JANICE ROSALES, as surviving statutory beneficiary for the wrongful death of Armando Rosales, Jr., deceased, individually and on behalf of all other heirs of decedent, Plaintiff, v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation, d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE; MCKESSON CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; DOES ONE through FIFTEEN, inclusive, Defendants.

Case No. CV-08-5658 EMC STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS' TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SA N FRA N C I S C O

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, that the time within which defendants SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE ("GSK") and McKESSON CORPORATION ("McKesson") (collectively "Defendants") may move, answer, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint is extended pending the determination of certain jurisdictional issues. It is agreed that should this matter
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS' TIME TO RESPOND
SF01/ 620873.1

CASE NO. CV-08-5658 EMC

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
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SA N FRA N C I S C O

remain in this Court, and neither be transferred to the MDL nor remanded, Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint within thirty (30) days from the date the JPML rules upon Plaintiff's opposition to transfer to the MDL, but if the matter is transferred to the MDL, the time for responding shall be governed by the Pretrial Orders entered in the multidistrict litigation, In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL 1871 (E.D. Pa.) before the Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.1 It is further agreed, that should this matter be remanded to state court, Defendants shall respond within thirty (30) days of entry of the remand order. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, stipulations which alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by the Court require court approval. Although the parties believe this stipulation will have no such effect, to the extent that it does, the parties request that this Court approve the proposed order below, consistent with the stipulation above. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///
The above-entitled action was tagged for transfer to MDL 1871 and awaits a ruling upon Plaintiff's opposition to transfer to the MDL now pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS' TIME TO RESPOND
SF01/ 620873.1

-2-

CASE NO. CV-08-5658 EMC

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
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SA N FRA N C I S C O

IT IS SO STIPULATED: Dated: January 7, 2009 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

By: /s/ Krista L. Cosner Krista L. Cosner Attorneys for Defendants SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION dba GLAXOSMITHKLINE and MCKESSON CORPORATION

Dated: January 7, 2009

PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES

By: /s/ Lowell Finson Lowell Finson Robert F. Clarke Attorneys for Plaintiff JANICE ROSALES

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: 1/9/2009

UNIT ED

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS' TIME TO RESPOND
SF01/ 620873.1

-3-

CASE NO. CV-08-5658 EMC

A

C

LI

FO

arily Judge M

n H. Pa

tel

R NIA

United States District Court, Northern D RDE E District S SCaliforniaR of I OO IT

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

RT U O

NO

RT

H