Bishop et al v. Cordis Corporation
Filing
25
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Alsup on 6/8/2017. Show Cause Response due by 6/12/2017. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
AUDREY BISHOP, et al.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
No. C 16-07272 WHA
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
CORDIS CORPORATION,
Defendant.
/
Defendant Cordis Corporation removed this action, “along with other cases asserting the
17
claims of more than 200 plaintiffs, under the ‘mass action’ provision of the Class Action
18
Fairness Act.” Judge Edward Chen issued an order remanding many such cases. Cordis’s
19
appeal from that order raised the same jurisdictional issues that are at issue in the above-
20
captioned matter (Dkt. No. 12 at 1–2). Our court of appeals affirmed Judge Chen’s order on
21
April 14 and denied Cordis’s petition for rehearing en banc on May 23 (Dkt. Nos. 22, 24).
22
Meanwhile, at the parties’ request, the initial case management conference has been
23
postponed, effectively staying the case pending Cordis’s appeal. Now that the appeal has run
24
its course, the Court intends to remand this action next week for the same reasons set forth in
25
Judge Chen’s order and affirmed by our court of appeals unless either side SHOWS CAUSE in
26
writing by JUNE 12 AT 5:00 P.M. why such remand should not occur. That Cordis may pursue
27
further appeal shall not suffice. This action has now been delayed for approximately three
28
months on account of improper removal. While the Court will at least consider extending the
1
current de facto stay for good cause shown, the mere (and remote) possibility that the Supreme
2
Court might grant review is not good cause for further delay.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: June 8, 2017.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?