Mary Jane Jasin et al v. Vivus, Inc. et al

Filing 37

ORDER GRANTING 36 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFFS' RULE 54(B) MOTION. Replies due by 12/15/2015. Responses due by 11/20/2015.Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 09/21/2015. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Norman J. Blears (SBN 95600)
[e-mail]
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Robin E. Wechkin (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
Seattle, Washington
Telephone: [phone]
Michael L. Charlson (SBN 122125)
[e-mail]
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
525 Market Street, Suite 2750
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN JOSE DIVISION

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

MARY JANE JASIN and THOMAS JASIN,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
VIVUS, INC., LELAND F. WILSON,
TIMOTHY MORRIS, and PETER Y. TAM
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:14-CV-03263 BLF
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFFS’ RULE
54(B) MOTION

25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 54(B) MOTION
CASE NO. 5:14-CV-03263

1
2
3

STIPULATION
WHEREAS:
1.

The plaintiffs in this action filed their Second Amended Complaint on August 14,

4

2015. The parties have stipulated to, and the Court has approved, a schedule pursuant to which

5

defendants’ response is due on October 2, 2015, and, if defendants’ response takes the form of a

6

motion to dismiss, the opposition to and reply in support of that motion are due November 20, 2015

7

and December 15, 2015 respectively. Dkt # 34.

8
9
10

2.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is scheduled on the

Court’s calendar for hearing on January 14, 2016.
3.

On September 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for entry of partial judgment under

11

Rule 54(b). Dkt. # 35. Defendants intend to oppose that motion. Plaintiffs have scheduled their

12

Rule 54(b) motion for hearing on the Court’s calendar on January 14, 2016, the same date

13

defendants’ motion to dismiss is scheduled to be heard.

14

4.

The parties believe the interests of efficiency will be best served if briefing on the

15

plaintiffs’ Rule 54(b) motion proceeds according to the same schedule as briefing on defendants’

16

motion to dismiss, particularly as the two motions are scheduled for hearing on the same date.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

THE PARTIES THEREFORE STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:
1.

Defendants’ opposition to plaintiffs’ Rule 54(b) motion should be filed on or before

November 20, 2015.
2.

Plaintiffs’ reply in support of their Rule 54(b) motion should be filed on or before

December 15, 2015.
Dated: September 18, 2015

By: s/ Norman J. Blears

25

Norman J. Blears
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

26

Counsel for Defendants

27
28

1

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 54(B) MOTION
CASE NO. 5:14-CV-03263

1

Dated: September 18, 2015

By: s/ Rosemary M. Rivas

2

Rosemary M. Rivas
Finkelstein Thompson LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]

3
4
5

L. Kendall Satterfield
Michael G. McClellan
Rosalee B.C. Thomas
Finkelstein Thompson LLP
1077 30th St NW, Suite 150
Washington, D.C. 20007
Telephone: [phone]

6
7
8
9

Counsel for Plaintiffs

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 54(B) MOTION
CASE NO. 5:14-CV-03263

1
2
3
4

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation above, the Court orders as follows:
1.

Defendants’ opposition to plaintiffs’ Rule 54(b) motion is due November 20, 2015.

2.

Plaintiffs’ reply in support of their Rule 54(b) motion is due December 15, 2015.

5
6
7
8

Dated: September 21, 2015

HON. BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE RESPONSE TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 5:14-CV-03263