Rice et al v. McKesson Corporation
Filing
63
ORDER SHORTENING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND RESETTING HEARING (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/24/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
WENDELL RICE, et al.,
13
Plaintiffs,
14
15
16
No. C 12-05949 WHA
v.
ORDER SHORTENING
BRIEFING DEADLINES AND
RESETTING HEARING
MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
/
17
18
Prior orders twice denied plaintiffs’ requests to stay the proceedings in favor of a
19
hypothetical motion to remand. For reasons unknown, plaintiffs delayed filing that motion for
20
remand until the normal 35-day calendar would not allow it to be heard on the same day as the
21
pending misjoinder motion and motion to dismiss. Now that plaintiffs has filed the motion for
22
remand, plaintiffs (joined by certain defendants) seek once again to stay the proceedings.
23
In the interest of judicial efficiency the briefing deadlines on plaintiffs’ motion to remand
24
(Dkt. No. 58) are hereby modified as follows: defendants shall file their opposition to the
25
motion to remand by NOON ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 31; plaintiffs shall file their reply by
26
NOON ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 3. The hearing scheduled for January 31 is shall be
27
28
RESCHEDULED
to
1
JANUARY 10. The stipulated requests to extend the briefing schedule (Dkt. Nos. 60–61) are
2
DENIED.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: December 24, 2012.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?