Stephanie Pamintuan v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al

Filing 43

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 42 Stipulation Extend Time to File Reply re 26 MOTION to Dismiss. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Krista M. Enns (SBN: 206430)
[e-mail]
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.

7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11

STEPHANIE PAMINTUAN,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
and OTSUKA AMERICA
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-cv-00254-HSG
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
FILE REPLY AND ORDER
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

June 23, 2016
2:00 p.m.
Courtroom 10, 19th Floor
Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

Complaint Filed: January 15, 2016

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE REPLY AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Pamintuan v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00254-HSG

1

This stipulation in the above-captioned matter is made by and between the attorneys for

2

Plaintiff Stephanie Pamintuan (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

3

(“Defendant”).

4
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the attorneys for the parties
5
6

hereto, that the prescribed time within which Defendant may reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to

7

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is extended to May 23, 2016.

8

Given the new jurisdictional allegations in Plaintiff’s opposition, an extension of time is warranted.

9
10
11

This is the parties’ second stipulated request for an extension of time. On February 16, 2016,
the Court granted the parties’ first stipulated request for reciprocal 30-day extensions of the
prescribed time within which Defendants were permitted to move, answer, or otherwise respond to

12
13
14
15
16
17

the Complaint and the time within which Plaintiff was permitted to respond to any motion filed by
Defendants in response to the Complaint. Order, ECF 17.
The parties agree to the current stipulated request for an extension, and the extension does
not affect any other previously scheduled dates.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE REPLY AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Pamintuan v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00254-HSG

1

Dated: May 5, 2016

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

2
By:

3
4

/s/ Krista M. Enns
Krista M. Enns
Luke A. Connelly (pro hac vice)
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

5
6
7

Matthew A. Campbell (pro hac vice to be filed)
Eric M. Goldstein (pro hac vice)
Sarah J. Bily
Erika L. Mayer
1700 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

8
9
10
11
12

Attorneys for Defendant
OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.

13
14
15

Dated: May 5, 2016

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

By:

/s/ Munir R. Meghjee
Munir R. Meghjee
Gary L. Wilson (CA Bar # 139358)
[e-mail]
Munir R. Meghjee (MN Bar # 301437)
[e-mail]
Megan J. McKenzie (MN Bar # 388081)
[e-mail]
800 LaSalle Avenue
Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 612.339.4181
Attorneys for Plaintiff
STEPHANIE PAMINTUAN

26
27
28
3
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE REPLY AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Pamintuan v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00254-HSG

1
2

ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE IN FILING
In accordance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I, Krista M. Enns, attest that concurrence in the

3

filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories who are listed on this

4

signature page.

5

By:

/s/ Krista M. Enns
Krista M. Enns

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated: May 6, 2016______________________
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE REPLY AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Pamintuan v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00254-HSG