Knoles v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al

Filing 68

ORDER GRANTING 65 PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT PENDING DISPOSITION OF 66 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE TRUE NAME FOR FICTITIOUSLY NAMED DEFENDANT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/1/2019.(blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2019)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 SAN JOSE DIVISION 5 6 MARLESSA KNOLES, Plaintiff, 7 8 9 10 v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., et al., Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 17-cv-06580-BLF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT PENDING DISPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE TRUE NAME FOR FICTITIOUSLY NAMED DEFENDANT [Re: ECF 65] 12 13 14 Plaintiff has filed an Ex Parte Application for Extension to File Amended Complaint 15 (ECF 65), seeking extension of the February 22, 2019 deadline for amendment of her pleading 16 until the Court disposes of her Motion to Substitute True Name for Fictitiously Named Defendant 17 (ECF 66), which is set for hearing on May 23, 2019. Plaintiff asserts that that “Paragard IUD” is a 18 necessary party to the litigation; it would be futile to amend her complaint without adding 19 Paragard IUD as a defendant; and this Court’s order dismissing her complaint with leave to amend 20 prohibits her from adding new parties without express leave of the Court. 21 Plaintiff’s application for an extension of time is GRANTED. In granting the extension, 22 the Court has not evaluated the merits of Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend to add Paragard 23 IUD as a party. The Court has determined only that the latter motion should be resolved before 24 any amended pleading is filed. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 28 Dated: March 1, 2019 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge

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?