Connelly v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. et al

Filing 40

ORDER GRANTING 39 STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/5/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

MAYER BROWN LLP
Daniel L. Ring (appearance pro hac vice)
71 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-4668
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Andrew E. Tauber (appearance pro hac vice)
1999 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Elspeth V. Hansen (Cal. Bar No. 292193)
Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants St. Jude Medical, LLC,
Abbott Laboratories, and Pacesetter, Inc.

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN JOSE DIVISION

17
18

RICHARD CONNELLY,

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiff,
vs.
ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC., a
Minnesota corporation; ABBOTT
LABORATORIES AS THE
SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ST.
JUDE MEDICAL, INC., an Illinois
corporation; and PACESETTER, INC.,
dba St. Jude Cardiac Rhythm
Management Division, a Delaware
corporation,

Case No. 5:17-cv-02006-EJD
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR
DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFF’S PLEADINGS

Complaint Filed: April 11, 2017

Defendants.

27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR DEFENDANTS
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S PLEADINGS, CASE NO. 5:17-CV-02006-EJD

WHEREAS, on April 11, 2017, Plaintiff Richard Connelly (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint

1
2

in the above-captioned matter;

3

WHEREAS, on June 23, 2017, Defendants St. Jude Medical, Inc., Abbott Laboratories,

4

and Pacesetter, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims in Plaintiff’s

5

Complaint;

6

WHEREAS, on July 5, 2017, this Court approved the parties’ stipulation extending the

7

deadlines for Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and Defendants’ Reply in support of

8

the Motion to Dismiss;
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2017, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’

9
10

Motion to Dismiss and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by September 8, 2017;
WHEREAS, Defendants are currently required to respond to the claims that were not

11
12

dismissed by September 6, 2017;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff currently intends to file an amended complaint by September 8,

13
14

2017;
WHEREAS, Defendants named in the Amended Complaint would be required to respond

15
16

to an Amended Complaint filed on September 8, 2017 no later than September 22, 2017;

17

WHEREAS, given the desire to avoid filing an answer that would be mooted by the

18

Amended Complaint and that can only address a portion of the pleadings that Plaintiff intends to

19

amend, Plaintiff and Defendants agree an extension of the deadlines for Defendants to respond to

20

the Complaint is warranted to avoid piecemeal pleadings and unnecessary expense;

21

WHEREAS, in addition, given international travel previously scheduled by lead defense

22

counsel, Mr. Ring, and the complexity of the issues in this matter, Plaintiff and Defendants agree

23

an extension of the deadlines for any defendants named in the Amended Complaint to respond is

24

warranted to enable sufficient time to assess whether any further motion practice is warranted or

25

whether any defendants will instead answer the anticipated Amended Complaint;
WHEREAS extending these deadlines will not impact any other existing deadlines in this

26
27

matter.

28
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR DEFENDANTS
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S PLEADINGS, CASE NO. 5:17-CV-02006-EJD

1

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AS FOLLOWS:

2

1. Defendants shall not be required to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint by September 6,

3

2017.

4

2. If Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint by September 8, 2017, any defendant named

5

in the Amended Complaint must answer or otherwise respond no later than October

6

13, 2017.

7
8

Dated: September 1, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

/s/ Daniel L. Ring
MAYER BROWN LLP
Daniel L. Ring (appearance pro hac vice)
71 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-4668
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Andrew E. Tauber (appearance pro hac vice)
1999 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

17
18
19
20

Elspeth V. Hansen (Cal. Bar No. 292193)
Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

21
22

Attorneys for Defendants St. Jude Medical, LLC,
Abbott Laboratories, and Pacesetter, Inc.

23
24
25
26
27
28

/s/ Camilo Artiga-Purcell
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
Camilo Artiga-Purcell (SBN 273229)
[e-mail]
Joseph W. Cotchett (SBN 36324)
[e-mail]
Nanci E. Nishimura (SBN 152621;)
[e-mail]
San Francisco Airport Office Center
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR DEFENDANTS
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S PLEADINGS, CASE NO. 5:17-CV-02006-EJD

2

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

3

Attorneys for Plaintiff

1

4
5
6
7
8
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 EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR DEFENDANTS
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S PLEADINGS, CASE NO. 5:17-CV-02006-EJD

1
2
3

LOCAL RULE 5(i)(3) ATTESTATION
I, Daniel L. Ring, hereby attest, pursuant to Northern District of California, Local Rule 51(i)(3), that concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory.

4
5

/s/ Daniel L. Ring

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR DEFENDANTS
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S PLEADINGS, CASE NO. 5:17-CV-02006-EJD

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

Before this Court is the parties’ Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Deadlines for

2
3

Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff’s Pleadings. The Stipulation is GRANTED. It is HEREBY

4

ORDERED that:

5

1.

6

Defendants shall not be required to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint by

September 6, 2017.
2.

7

If Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint by September 8, 2017, any defendant

8

named in the Amended Complaint must answer or otherwise respond no later than October 13,

9

2017.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

September 5, 2017

Dated: ___________________

____________________________________
Hon. Edward J. Davila
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR DEFENDANTS
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S PLEADINGS, CASE NO. 5:17-CV-02006-EJD