Flores et al v. McKesson Corporation et al

Filing 13

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 12 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER COMPLAINT filed by SmithKline Beecham Corporation. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 18, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2013)

REED SMITH LLP

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

1 Michael K. Brown (SBN 104252)
Email:
[e-mail]
2 Reed Smith LLP
355 South Grand Avenue
3 Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
5
Sonja S. Weissman (SBN 154320)
[e-mail]
6 Email:
Steven J. Boranian (SBN 174183)
7 Email: [e-mail]
Reed Smith LLP
8 101 Second Street
Suite 1800
9 San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
Telephone: [phone]
10 Facsimile: [phone]
11 Attorneys for Defendants
GlaxoSmithKline LLC (formerly known as
12 SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a
GlaxoSmithKline) and McKesson Corporation
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16 SANTIAGO FLORES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

17
18

vs.

19 MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al.,
20

Case No. 3:13-cv-03153-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER
COMPLAINT

Defendants.
Honorable Jon S. Tigar

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:13-cv-03153-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER
COMPLAINT

1

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

2

Plaintiffs in this action, Defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC, (f/k/a SmithKline Beecham

3 Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline) (“GSK”) and Defendant McKesson Corporation
4 (“McKesson”), hereby submit, through their undersigned counsel of record, the following
5 Stipulation and accompanying [Proposed] Order.
6

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c)(2), Defendants GSK, and

7 McKesson (collectively, “Defendants”) have not yet answered the Plaintiffs’ Complaint prior to
8 removal of this case from San Francisco Superior Court on July 9, 2013. Defendants have 21 days
9 after “receiving--through service or otherwise--a copy of the initial pleading stating the claim for

REED SMITH LLP

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

10 relief” and therefore have 21 days to Answer Plaintiffs’ Complaint. McKesson was served with
11 Plaintiffs’ Complaint on July 1, 2013. GSK has not been served with Plaintiffs’ Complaint. GSK
12 intends to file a Motion to Stay. Plaintiffs intend to file a Motion to Remand. (See Declaration of
13 Steven J. Boranian (“Boranian Decl.”) in Support of Joint Stipulation Extending Defendants’ time to
14 Answer Complaint ¶ 5)
15

WHEREAS, the parties, having met and conferred, pursuant to Civil L.R 6-3, jointly

16 stipulate to and respectfully request that this Court extend the time for Defendants to Answer the
17 Complaint until 30 days after entry of an order on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. (See Boranian
18 Decl. ¶ 6)
19

WHEREAS, the parties agree that good cause exists for the requested extension of time in

20 order to serve the interests of judicial economy, efficiency, and fairness. This action will either be
21 remanded to the Superior Court of San Francisco or transferred to the Avandia MDL. Therefore, in
22 order to conserve the resources of the Court and the parties, all parties agree that Defendants’
23 Answers should ultimately be filed in the San Francisco Superior Court or in the Avandia MDL.
24 (See Boranian Decl. ¶ 7)
25

WHEREAS, no party to this case has previously requested any time modifications in this

26 action. (See Boranian Decl. ¶ 8)
27

By the filing of this Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order, the Plaintiffs do not concede, and

28 Case No. 3:13-cv-03153-JST

-1 -

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER
COMPLAINT

1 Defendant will not argue, that the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over this action
2 because of the submission of this Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order.
3

WHEREAS, the requested relief would not cause any undue hardship, delay, or prejudice to

4 either party or the Court and is warranted by the circumstances in this case. (See Boranian Decl. ¶ 9)
5
6 DATED: July 18, 2013
REED SMITH LLP
Michael K. Brown
Sonja S. Weissman
Steven J. Boranian

7
8
9

REED SMITH LLP

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

10

By: /s/ Steven J. Boranian
Steven J. Boranian
Attorneys for Defendants
GlaxoSmithKline LLC (formerly known as
SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a
GlaxoSmithKline) and McKesson Corporation

11
12
13
14
15
16

DATED: July 18, 2013
NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHOLNIK &
ASSOCIATES LLP

17
18

By: /s/ Marissa Langhoff
Marissa Langhoff
Hunter J. Shkolnik
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Case No. 3:13-cv-03153-JST

-2 -

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER
COMPLAINT

FILER’S ATTESTATION

1
2

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the undersigned attests that all signatories have concurred

3 in the filing of this Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Extending Time for Defendants to
4 Answer Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
5
6 DATED: July 18, 2013
REED SMITH LLP
Michael K. Brown
Sonja S. Weissman
Steven J. Boranian

7
8
9

REED SMITH LLP

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

10

By: /s/ Steven J. Boranian
Steven J. Boranian
Attorneys for Defendants
GlaxoSmithKline LLC (formerly known as
SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a
GlaxoSmithKline) and McKesson Corporation

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Case No. 3:13-cv-03153-JST

-3 -

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER
COMPLAINT

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

3
4

July 18, 2013
DATED: __________

5
6
7

Honorable Jon S. Tigar
United States District Judge

8
9

REED SMITH LLP

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Case No. 3:13-cv-03153-JST

-4 -

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER
COMPLAINT