Hellgren et al v. Pfizer, Inc et al
Filing
14
ORDER GRANTING 13 FURTHER STIPULATION. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 3/5/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2012)
Case3:12-cv-00735-JSW Document13 Filed03/02/12 Page1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
WHITE & CASE LLP
BIJAL V. VAKIL (SBN 192878)
bvakil@whitecase.com
5 Palo Alto Square, 9th Floor
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: (650) 213-0300
Facsimile:
(650) 213-8158
Counsel for Defendants
PFIZER INC., PFIZER IRELAND
PHARMACEUTICALS, and
WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY LLC
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12
SILICON VALLEY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
W HITE & C ASE LLP
11
13
SANDRA HELLGREN, an individual, and
BERNARD A. ORSI, an individual,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Civil Action No.: 3:12-cv-0735 –JSW
Plaintiffs,
FURTHER STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER
v.
PFIZER, INC., a Delaware Corporation, PFIZER
IRELAND PHARMACEUTICALS, an Irish
partnership, WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY,
formerly a Delaware Corporation, WARNERLAMBERT COMPANY LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, RANBAXY, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
United States District Judge
Jeffrey S. White
Case3:12-cv-00735-JSW Document13 Filed03/02/12 Page2 of 4
1
2
3
WHEREAS the Notice of Removal of Action from State Court in the above-captioned
action was filed on February 15, 2012; and
WHEREAS Plaintiffs Sandra Hellgren and Bernard A. Orsi (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
4
filed a Second Amended Complaint against Defendants Pfizer Inc., Pfizer Ireland
5
Pharmaceuticals, and Warner-Lambert Company LLC (collectively, “Pfizer”) on January 23,
6
2012, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and the new caption should read “ANITA J. COX, an
7
individual; and SANDRA HELLGREN, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. PFIZER, INC, a Delaware
8
corporation; PFIZER IRELAND PHARMACEUTICALS, an Irish Partnership; WARNER-
9
LAMBERT COMPANY, formerly a Delaware corporation; WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY
10
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; RANBAXY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
11
DOES 1-10, Defendants; and
SILICON VALLEY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
W HITE & C ASE LLP
12
WHEREAS at least nine other actions have been filed in federal and state courts to date
13
challenging Pfizer’s allegedly anticompetitive conduct with regard to Lipitor and its generic
14
competitors. A petition is currently pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
15
(“JPML”) to transfer and coordinate these related federal actions, including the above-captioned
16
action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. In re: Lipitor Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2332. A
17
hearing to consider the transfer and coordination of the actions in MDL No. 2332 is set for March
18
29, 2012; and
19
WHEREAS Plaintiffs and Pfizer agree that the papers submitted in connection with the
20
Notice of Removal will not be deemed defective in anyway due to the filing of the Second
21
Amended Complaint, and
22
WHEREAS this Court has already granted Plaintiffs and Pfizer’s Stipulation filed on
23
February 24, 2012 (“Docket No 7”) on this date and this Further Stipulation is being presented to
24
clarify the operative complaint and does not, in anyway, alter or affect Docket No. 7.
25
WHEREAS Plaintiffs and Pfizer have met and conferred on this issue in good faith;
26
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by Plaintiffs and Pfizer, through their
27
respective counsel, that the deadline for Pfizer to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’
28
-2PALOALTO 110068
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-0735-JSW
Case3:12-cv-00735-JSW Document13 Filed03/02/12 Page3 of 4
1
Second Amended Complaint shall be extended to fourteen (14) days after the date the JPML
2
issues a ruling or decision regarding transfer and consolidation of actions in MDL No. 2332. The
3
parties reserve their right to discovery in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
4
and/or Civil Local Rules.
5
6
Respectfully submitted,
7
8
Dated: March 2, 2012
9
10
11
SILICON VALLEY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
W HITE & C ASE LLP
12
/s/ Bijal V. Vakil
Bijal V. Vakil, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
5 Palo Alto Square, 9th Floor
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, California 94306
Tel. 650 213 0300
Fax. 650 213 8158
Counsel for Defendants
PFIZER INC., PFIZER IRELAND
PHARMACEUTICALS, and
WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY LLC
13
14
15
16
Dated: March 2, 2012
17
18
19
20
/s/ Lawrence G. Papale
Lawrence G. Papale, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE G. PAPALE
1308 Main Street, Suite 117
St. Helena, CA 94574
Tel. (707) 963-1704
Fax. (707) 963-0706
Counsel for Plaintiffs
SANDRA HELLGREN and BERNARD A. ORSI
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3PALOALTO 110068
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-0735-JSW
Case3:12-cv-00735-JSW Document13 Filed03/02/12 Page4 of 4
1
2
ATTESTATION CLAUSE
I, Bijal V. Vakil, hereby attest in accordance with General Order No. 45.X that Lawrence
3
G. Papale, Counsel for Plaintiffs has provided his concurrence with the electronic filing of the
4
foregoing document entitled FURTHER STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER.
5
Dated: March 2, 2012
WHITE & CASE LLP
6
7
By:
8
/s/ Bijal V. Vakil
Bijal V. Vakil
Counsel for Defendants
PFIZER INC., PFIZER IRELAND
PHARMACEUTICALS, and
WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY LLC
9
10
11
SILICON VALLEY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
W HITE & C ASE LLP
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ORDER
Pursuant to the above Stipulation filed in this action, it is hereby ORDERED that the
time within which Defendants Pfizer Inc., Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, and WarnerLambert Company LLC may answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended
19
Complaint is hereby extended to fourteen (14) days after the date the Judicial Panel on
20
Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) issues a ruling or decision regarding the transfer and
21
coordination of actions in In re: Lipitor Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2332.
22
23
March 5, 2012
Dated: _____________________
24
__
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
-4PALOALTO 110068
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-0735-JSW
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?