Michael Smith v. Pfizer, Inc.

Filing 12

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/23/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2016)

1
2
3
4

Matthew A. Holian (SBN 211728)
DLA Piper LLP (US)
33 Arch Street, 26th floor
Boston, MA 02110-1447
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

George J. Gigounas (SBN 209334)
DLA Piper LLP (US)
555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
Pfizer Inc.

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15
16
17

MICHAEL SMITH,

Case No.: 3:16-cv-01183-RS
Plaintiff,

18
19
20
21

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINE TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

v.
PFIZER, INC.
Defendant.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
3:16-cv-01183-RS

On December 11, 2015, several Plaintiffs, without opposition, moved the Judicial Panel

1
2

on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) to transfer and coordinate 15 actions, including any “tag-

3

along” actions, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,

4

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. Defendants agree that coordination is appropriate and that the

5

Northern District of California is a suitable venue. See Case MDL No. 2691, Dkt. 1 through 1-4.

6

On December 28, 2015, with briefing essentially complete in support of Plaintiffs’

7

unopposed motion to transfer, the parties jointly moved the JPML for expedited consideration of

8

Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion on the January 28, 2016 hearing session. See Case MDL No. 2691,

9

Dkt. 16.
On December 29, 2015, the motion for expedited consideration was denied by the JPML.

10
11

See Case MDL No. 2691, Dkt. 19. Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer will be heard at the next JPML

12

hearing, on March 31, 2016 in Santa Barbara.
Defendant Pfizer Inc.’s current deadline to respond to the complaint in this matter is

13
14

April 5, 2016. The parties have not previously requested an extension of time for any deadlines

15

in this matter.

16

To avoid unnecessary pleadings and provide the JPML with the time it requires to rule on

17

the parties’ pending motion to transfer, Defendant Pfizer Inc. and Plaintiff Michael Smith wish to

18

stipulate to extend Pfizer’s deadline to respond to the Complaint until sixty (60) days after a

19

ruling by the JPML on Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer.
Based on the foregoing and pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2 of the Northern District of

20
21

California, the parties stipulate and agree to extend Pfizer’s deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s

22

complaint in this matter until sixty (60) days after the JPML rules on Plaintiffs’ motion to

23

transfer, described above.

24

////

25

////

26

////

27

////

28

////
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
3:16-cv-01183-RS

1

DATED: March 22, 2016

2
3
4
5
6
7

By:____/s/ Rachel B. Abrams
Rachel B. Abrams (SBN 209316)
Meghan E. McCormick (SBN 283853)
LEVIN SIMES LLP
44 Montgomery Street, 32nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

13

Ernest Cory
Kristian W. Rasmussen
Lauren S. Miller
CORY WATSON, P.C.
2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

14

________

Attorneys for Plaintiff

8
9
10
11
12

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

DATED: March 22, 2016

By:____/s/ Matthew A. Holian_________________
Matthew A. Holian (SBN 211728)
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
33 Arch Street, 26th floor
Boston, MA 02110 -1447
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
George J. Gigounas (SBN 209334)
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
555 Mission Street Suite 2400
San Francisco, California 94105-2933
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Pfizer Inc.

27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
3:16-cv-01183-RS

1

I, Matthew A. Holian, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file

2

the foregoing Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Continuing Deadline To Respond To Complaint.

3

I hereby attest that the above-referenced signatory to this stipulation has concurred in this filing.

4
5

/s/ Matthew A. Holian
MATTHEW A. HOLIAN

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
3:16-cv-01183-RS

ORDER

1
2

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, IT IS ORDERED:

3

The time for Defendant Pfizer Inc. to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint in this action is

4

continued until sixty (60) calendar days after the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

5

(“JPML”) issues its ruling on Plaintiffs’ pending motion to transfer and coordinate 15 actions,

6

including any “tag-along” actions, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

7

California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407.

8
9

3/23
Dated: _________________, 2016

10
11
12

By:
Honorable Richard Seeborg
United States District Court Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
3:16-cv-01183-RS