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
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?