Cunningham v. Medtronic Inc. et al

Filing 153

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ADDRESSING PENDING MOTIONS. (terminating 150 and 151 ). (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LORENZO R. CUNNINGHAM,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER ADDRESSING PENDING
MOTIONS

v.
MEDTRONIC INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 150, 151

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 14-cv-04814-HSG (PR)

12
13

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner incarcerated at the California Healthcare Facility, filed

14

this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action arises out of lumbar-thoracic spinal

15

fusion surgeries performed on plaintiff in April of 2012 and September of 2012. On February 21,

16

2017, the Court screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”), which sought to add

17

claims arising out of a third lumbar-thoracic spinal fusion surgery performed in February of 2016.

18

Plaintiff has named two defendants: (1) Dr. Burch, who performed the surgeries, and (2)

19

Medtronic Inc. (“Medtronic”), which manufactured the spinal rods used in the 2012 surgeries and

20

February 2016 surgery. The Court found that, liberally construed, the SAC states: (1) a claim of

21

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs as against Dr. Burch; (2) supplemental state law

22

claims for negligence as against Dr. Burch; and (3) supplemental state law claims for strict

23

liability, negligence, and failure to warn as against Medtronic. The Court also bifurcated summary

24

judgment proceedings and directed Dr. Burch to file a motion for summary judgment, while the

25

claims against Medtronic were stayed. Dr. Burch filed his summary judgment motion on October

26

11, 2017. Now before the Court are: (1) plaintiff’s motion for substitution of counsel, and

27

(2) plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to oppose Dr. Burch’s motion for summary

28

judgment.

The motion for substitution of counsel is DENIED as unnecessary. Justin D. Harris

1
2

of the Harris Law Firm has filed a notice of appearance and is now counsel of record for plaintiff.

3

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to oppose summary judgment is GRANTED. The

4

Clerk shall set this matter for a case management conference within 90 days of this order. All

5

proceedings in this action are stayed until that time to give counsel time to familiarize himself

6

with the case. The parties shall file a joint case management statement no later than seven

7

calendar days before the case management conference.

8
9

The Clerk is further directed to serve a copy of this order upon plaintiff and upon counsel
for all parties.
This order terminates Docket Nos. 150 and 151.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: 11/30/2017

13
14
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2