Dunson et al v. Cordis Corporation

Filing 18

ORDER ON AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/8/2016)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 JERRY DUNSON, et al., Case No. 16-cv-03076-SI Plaintiffs, 5 v. ORDER ON AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS 6 7 CORDIS CORPORATION, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 7 Defendants. 8 9 Defendant Cordis Corporation (“Cordis”) recently filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 complaint. Dkt. No. 7. Plaintiffs respond that this motion fails to address plaintiffs’ first amended 12 complaint (“FAC”). Dkt. No. 15 at 8.1 There appears to be a dispute over whether defendant was 13 properly served with the FAC. Dkt. No. 16 at 7, Reply Br. Cordis contends that plaintiffs’ 14 complaint and FAC “are identical in substance,” but that, “[s]hould it aid the Court, Cordis can 15 promptly refile its motion to dismiss with citations to the FAC.” Id. at 8. 16 Given the length of the two complaints, the addition of defendants to the FAC (and any 17 choice of law issues that may be implicated), and the citation discrepancies that exist among the 18 parties’ submissions, the Court ORDERS Cordis to promptly refile its motion to dismiss with 19 citations to the FAC, by July 12, 2016 at 12:00pm. The matter remains on the Court’s July 22, 20 2016 calendar. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 8, 2016 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The page numbers cited refer to the page numbers generated by ECF.

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?