Oehring et al v. Cordis Corporation et al

Filing 26

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, 21 Motion to Stay.Oppositions to 7 Motion to Dismiss and 13 Motion to Dismiss due by 7/8/2016 and Replies due by 7/20/2016. Motion Hearing on 7 , 13 , and 20 set for 8/5/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on June 29, 2016. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LISA OEHRING, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10
11

v.
CORDIS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-03088-JSW
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND
DENYING, IN PART, MOTION TO
STAY, SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE ON MOTIONS TO
DISMISS AND SETTING MOTIONS
FOR HEARING ON AUGUST 5, 2016

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. Nos. 7, 13, 20, 21
12
13
14

Now before the Court for consideration is Plaintiffs’ motion to stay. (Docket No. 21.)

15

The Court concludes a response from Defendants is not warranted, for the reasons set forth in the

16

remainder of this Order.

17

On June 13, 2016, Defendant Cordis Corporation filed a motion to dismiss. (Docket No.

18

7.) Based on that filing date, Plaintiff’s opposition was due on June 27, 2016, even though this

19

case was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned Judge. (See Docket No. 10.) Defendant

20

Cardinal Health filed a motion to dismiss on June 16, 2016, and under the Local Rules, Plaintiffs’

21

opposition to that motion is due on June 30, 2016.

22

On June 24, 2016, instead of filing an opposition to Cordis’ motion, Plaintiffs filed a

23

motion to stay, in which they ask that the Court stay consideration of the motions to dismiss in

24

favor of their motion to remand, filed that same date. In the alternative, Plaintiffs ask that the

25

Court grant them an extension to respond to the motions to dismiss. Each of these motions was

26

corrected in a non-substantive manner on June 27, 2016, and are set to be heard on July 29, 2016,

27

with Cardinal’s motion to dismiss.

28

Plaintiffs filed the motion to stay shortly before the date their opposition to Cordis’ motion

1

wa due, but di not seek to have it hea on shorte
as
id
o
ard
ened time. T
They also did not file an
n

2

adm
ministrative motion to ex
xtend the deadline to res
spond to Def
fendants’ mo
otions. Thus the
s,

3

De
efendants are not required to respond to the motio to stay un well afte Plaintiffs’ deadlines to
e
d
on
ntil
er
o

4

res
spond to thei motions to dismiss hav passed.
ir
o
ve
The Co has the inherent pow to manag its own do
ourt
wer
ge
ocket. See L
Landis v. N. A Co.,
Am.

5
6

299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court agrees that th motion to remand sho
9
2
a
he
o
ould be cons
sidered prior
r

7

to a ruling on the motions to dismiss, because it im
t
b
mplicates this Court’s jur
s
risdiction. H
However, the
e

8

Court does not find good cause to stay briefing on the motions to dismiss. Rather, the Court finds
s

9

tha in the inte
at,
erests of judi
icial econom and efficie
my
ency, it shall hear both m
motions to d
dismiss and
the motion to remand on th same date Therefore the Court C
e
r
he
e.
e,
CONTINUE the hearin on
ES
ng

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Pla
aintiffs’ moti to reman and Cordi motion to dismiss to August 5, 20
ion
nd
is’
o
016, when C
Cordis has

12

re-noticed its motion to dis
m
smiss.
The briefing schedu on Plaint
ule
tiffs’ motion to remand s
n
shall remain unchanged and
n

13
14

De
efendant’s op
pposition sha be due on July 8, 201 6. Plaintiffs reply shal be due on J
all
n
s’
ll
July 15,

15

201
16.

16

In light of the fact that Plaintiff have not fi
t
t
fs
filed an oppo
osition to Co
ordis’ motion within the
n

17

tim required by the Local Rules, and because the Court conclu
me
b
b
udes that the motion sho
e
ould be

18

res
solved on its merits, the Court will gr Plaintiff a brief ext
C
rant
ffs
tension to re
espond to De
efendants’

19

mo
otions to dism
miss. Plainti shall file their oppos
iffs
e
sition briefs by no later t
than July 8, 2
2016. The

20

Court shall gra Defendan an extens
ant
nts
sion of time t submit th reply briefs, which m be filed
to
heir
may

21

by July 20, 201
16.

22
23
24
25
26
27

If the Court finds th any of th motions ar suitable fo dispositio without or
C
hat
he
re
or
on
ral
arg
gument, it wi notify the parties in ad
ill
e
dvance of th hearing da
he
ate.
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: June 29 2016
9,
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JEF
FFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

28
2