Freitas et al v. McKesson Corporation et al

Filing 23

STIPULATION AND ORDER Staying Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pending Outcome of Motion to Remand.. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 1/2/13. (tdm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

SEDGWICK LLP
Karen Woodward (State Bar No. 205543)
Christopher P. Norton (State Bar No. 234621)
801 S. Figueroa Street, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017-5556
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
XANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
Matthew J. Vanis (SBN 210706)
One Montgomery, Suite 2700
San Francisco, CA 94104
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorney for Defendant
COVIDIEN INC.

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

TERRY FREITAS, et al.,

16

Plaintiffs,

17

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-05948 SC

v.

18

Assigned to the Hon. Samuel Conti
STIPULATION TO STAY MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
PENDING OUTCOME OF MOTION TO
REMAND

MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al.,

19

Defendants.

20
21
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
22
Defendant Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Xanodyne”) and plaintiffs hereby agree and
23
stipulate to STAY Xanodyne’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings as follows:
24
Plaintiffs’ action was removed by Defendants Brenn Distribution, Inc. to the United
25
States District Court for the Northern District of California on November 20, 2012.
26
On December 17, 2012, Xanodyne filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based
27
on lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ opposition to that motion is due December 31, 2012.
28
LA/2157793v1

-1-

3:12-cv-05948 SC

Stipulation To Stay Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings Pending Outcome Of Motion To Remand

1

The hearing on that motion is set for February 15, 2013.

2
3

Plaintiffs will file a Motion to Remand on or before January 3, 2013. The Clerk of this
Court has assigned a hearing date of February 15, 2013 for the Motion to Remand.

4

Plaintiffs and defendant Xanodyne agree that the Court should decide the motion to

5

remand before other motions. Accordingly, in order to promote the efficiency for the Court and

6

the parties, Xanodyne and plaintiffs have agreed to stay Xanodyne’s Motion for Judgment on the

7

Pleadings pending the outcome of the Motion to Remand.

8

ON THESE BASES, plaintiffs and Xanodyne agree that:

9

Xanodyne’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is stayed pending the outcome of the

10

Motion to Remand;

11

The hearing on plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand will remain set for February 15, 2013.

12

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

13

DATED: December 31, 2012

14

SEDGWICK LLP
By:

15
16

/s/ Christopher P. Norton
KAREN WOODWARD
CHRISTOPHER P. NORTON
Attorneys for Defendant
Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

17
18

DATED: December 31, 2012

SALKOW LAW, APC

19
By:

20
21

1/2/13
N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

R NIA
FO

LI

ER

H

27

Judge S

RT

26

onti

amuel C

NO

25

D

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

A

24

UNIT
ED

23

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T

RT
U
O

S

22

/s/ Richard Salkow
RICHARD SALKOW
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

C

28
LA/2157793v1

-2-

3:12-cv-05948 SC

Stipulation To Stay Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings Pending Outcome Of Motion To Remand