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)

Download PDF
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?