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)

Download PDF
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

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?