Blalock et al v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.

Filing 26

ORDER re 25 Stipulation filed by James Blalock, Brian Lobb, Lisa Lindsey, Shirley Hancock, Julius Riddick, Thomas James, Thomas P. Schmalzried, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Dennis Godwin, James Lovell, Wendell Brown, James Hancock, Mary James, William Lindsey, Terry Keibler, Donna Blalock, Dan Keys, Edward Moore. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 10/25/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (San Francisco) 10 11 12 13 14 15 DONNA BLALOCK; JAMES BLALOCK; WENDELL BROWN; DENNIS GODWIN; JAMES HANCOCK; SHIRLEY HANCOCK; THOMAS JAMES; MARY JAMES; TERRY KEIBLER; RITA KEYS; DAN KEYS; WILLIAM LINDSEY; LISA LINDSEY; BRIAN LOBB; JAMES LOVELL; EDWARD MOORE; and JULIUS RIDDICK, 16 Plaintiffs, 17 18 19 20 v. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., THOMAS P. SCHMALZRIED, M.D., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, CASE NO. 3:11-cv-04746-SBA [State Case No. CGC-11-513626] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (L.R. 6-1) RE THOMAS P. SCHMALZRIED, M.D., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Complaint served: August 29, 2011 Removal Date: September 22, 2011 Current Response Date: October 29, 2011 Agreed Response Date: after ruling on pending motions 21 22 Defendants. 23 24 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 25 Defendant Thomas P. Schmalzried, M.D., A Professional Corporation (“Defendant”) 26 hereby requests, and Plaintiffs Donna Blalock; James Blalock; Wendell Brown; Dennis Godwin; 27 James Hancock; Shirley Hancock; Thomas James; Mary James; Terry Keibler; Rita Keys; Dan 28 Keys; William Lindsey; Lisa Lindsey; Brian Lobb; James Lovell; Edward Moore; and Julius 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (L.R. 6-1) 1 Riddick (“Plaintiffs”) hereby agree to Defendant’s request, for an extension of time for 2 Defendant to file a response to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as follows: 3 4 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed in state court on August 24, 2011 and Defendant was served on or about August 29, 2011; 5 WHEREAS, this matter was removed to this court on September 22, 2011; 6 WHEREAS, Defendant and Plaintiff previously stipulated to a 30-day extension of time 7 8 9 10 for Defendant to respond up to October 29, 2011; WHEREAS, since the above noted stipulation was filed, the following has occurred in this matter: 1) A Conditional Transfer Order regarding the transfer of this matter to MDL 11 No. 2244, In Re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Products 12 Liability Litigation, was filed on October 11, 2011, which order was opposed by 13 Plaintiffs on October 12, 2011. Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate this order is due on 14 October 26, 2011 and DePuy’s response is due November 16, 2011. 15 2) On September 27, 2011, DePuy filed a Motion to Stay pending transfer to MDL 16 No. 2244, which Plaintiffs opposed on October 11, 2011. The stay motion is set 17 for hearing on February 7, 2012. 18 3) On October 13, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand this action to the 19 Superior Court for the County of San Francisco, along with an ex parte 20 application to set hearing on this motion before December 1, 2011. DePuy 21 opposed the ex parte application and has stated an intention to oppose the remand 22 motion. A hearing date has not yet been set for this motion. 23 WHEREAS, all of the issues described above remain unresolved at present, leaving 24 doubt as to which court this matter will ultimately be litigated in and what manner of response 25 would be consistent with the rules and procedures of that court. 26 WHEREAS, Defendant requests an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ complaint 27 until such time as the venue and jurisdiction of this matter is resolved, and Plaintiffs have agreed. 28 In addition to avoiding unnecessary confusion and additional complication while the pending 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (L.R. 6-1) 1 motions and issues are addressed and resolved, this extension will also allow the parties 2 sufficient time and opportunity to further meet and confer on the claims and causes of action 3 asserted in the complaint with the goal of potentially avoiding future motions by Defendant, 4 partially in light of the resolution of the issues already pending. Thus, this extension of time 5 allows this Court to resolve these issues of jurisdiction and venue before Defendant responds to 6 the Complaint. 7 THEREFORE, the parties agree that the response of Defendant Thomas P. Schmalzried, 8 A Professional Corporation to the Complaint shall be due at the earlier of these two potential 9 days: 10 1. 20 days after the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation rules on 11 whether to transfer this matter to MDL No. 2244, In Re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 12 Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation; or, 13 2. 30 days after this Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, if such a ruling occurs. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 DATED: _10/25/11 18 19 _____________________________________________ Judge of the United States District Court 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (L.R. 6-1)

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?