Doe v. Hamburg et al

Filing 20

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 19 to Extend Defendants' Time to Respond to the Complaint filed by Margaret Hamburg, Kathleen Sebelius. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/7/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 STUART F. DELERY Acting Assistant Attorney General MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG Deputy Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL S. BLUME Director RICHARD GOLDBERG Assistant Director SANG H. LEE (DCB – 985267) Trial Attorney Consumer Protection Branch U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 386 Washington, DC 20044 Tel: (202) 532-4793 Fax: (202) 514-8742 Email: Sang.H.Lee@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendants Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 15 JANE DOE 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff, vs. MARGARET A. HAMBURG, M.D., in her official capacity as Commissioner, U.S. Food and Drug Administration 21 and 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case Number: C 12-03412 (EMC) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT WHEREAS, Plaintiff JANE DOE (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants MARGARET A. HAMBURG, M.D., in her official capacity as Commissioner, U.S. Food and 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT 1 Drug Administration, and KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary, U.S. 2 Department of Health and Human Services (“Defendants”) on or about July 2, 2012, in this 3 Court; 4 WHEREAS, Plaintiff served the Complaint on Defendants via certified mail on July 11, 5 2012, and absent an extension of time, the deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise 6 respond to the Complaint is September 10, 2012; 7 WHEREAS, Civil L.R. 6-1(a) of the United States District Court for the Northern District 8 of California provides that the parties may stipulate to extend the time within which to answer or 9 otherwise respond to the complaint without a Court order, provided the change will not alter the 10 date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court order; and 11 12 13 WHEREAS, there have been no prior stipulations or requests for extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties that Defendants may have an 14 extension of three weeks to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint, up to and including 15 October 1, 2012. 16 This extension of time will not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by 17 Court order. 18 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 19 Dated: September 6, 2012 BY: ____/s/ SHL______________ Sang H. Lee Attorney for Defendants Dated: September 6, 2012 BY: ____/s/ ADA______________ Amber D. Abbasi Attorney for Plaintiff 20 21 23 24 S RT U O 9/7 Dated: ______________, 2012 NO RT 2 dward Judge E n M. Che FO 28 R NIA _____________________________ ED Hon. EdwardO ORDER S S M. Chen IT I United States District Judge 27 LI 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. S DISTRICT TE C TA UNIT ED 25 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT H ER A 22 N F C ECF ATTESTATION 1 2 I, Sang H. Lee, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file 3 this Stipulation and Proposed Order to Extend Defendants’ Time to Response to the Complaint. 4 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i), I hereby attest that Amber D. Abbasi, counsel for Plaintiff, JANE 5 DOE, has concurred in this filing. 6 7 _______________________ Sang H. Lee Attorney for Defendants 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

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?