Quinn et al v. Cordis Corporation

Filing 18

ORDER Requiring Defendant's Response to Motion to Stay (wholc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HEATHER QUINN, et al.,

Case No. 16-cv-03080-WHO

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT'S
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STAY

9
10

CORDIS CORPORATION,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On June 13, 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which is set to be heard on July 20,

13

2017. Dkt. No. 7. On June 27, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand and a motion to stay the

14

case pending the Court’s resolution of the motion to remand, which are set to be heard on August

15

10, 2016. Dkt. Nos. 16, 17. I will treat the motion to stay (Dkt. No. 17) as an administrative

16

motion under Civil Local Rule 7-11. Within four days of the date of this Order, defendant shall

17

file a response of not more than 5 pages to plaintiffs’ motion to stay. Pending my determination of

18

plaintiffs’ motion to stay, the briefing schedule on defendants’ motion to dismiss is stayed. The

19

briefing schedule on plaintiffs’ motion to remand is not stayed.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 27, 2016
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge