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)

Download PDF
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

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?