Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sarandi v. Breau

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION


February 4, 2009

GREG SARANDI, PLAINTIFF,
v.
RAYMOND BREAU, ET AL., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING

Plaintiff Greg Sarandi, Defendants Srikant Datar and William W. George, and Nominal Defendant Novartis AG ("Novartis"), a Switzerland-based corporation, by and through their respective counsel, jointly stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, this action was filed on April 23, 2008;

WHEREAS, Defendants Datar and George and Nominal Defendant Novartis have been served with the Complaint in this action. Novartis was served with the Complaint under the Hague Service Convention;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the August 26, 2008 Stipulation Extending Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond, Defendants Datar and George and Nominal Defendant Novartis must respond to the Complaint on or before March 3, 2009;

WHEREAS, 11 additional named defendants in this action are non-U.S. residents who have not yet been served;

WHEREAS, Defendants Datar and George and Nominal Defendant Novartis intend to raise dispositive issues that would apply to served and unserved defendants in a motion to dismiss;

WHEREAS, the parties agree that, as a matter of judicial economy, these potentially dispositive issues should be addressed and resolved first, and issues regarding service and personal jurisdiction should be deferred, without waiver of the parties' rights to address those issues later, if necessary;

NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED THAT:

1. Defendants Datar and George and Nominal Defendant Novartis (collectively, the "Moving Defendants") shall move to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint on grounds other than for lack of personal jurisdiction on March 3, 2009 and notice the motion for the Court's next available hearing date at that time; Plaintiff will file his response to Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss no later than March 17, 2009; and Moving Defendants will file their reply to Plaintiff's response no later than March 24, 2009.

2. By entering into this Stipulation and moving to dismiss this action on grounds other than for lack of personal jurisdiction, the parties agree that Moving Defendants are not waiving any personal jurisdiction defense and that a motion challenging personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), if any, shall be considered timely made if filed after the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss discussed above in Paragraph 1. The parties also agree not to argue anything contrary to this Paragraph 2.

3. After the Court has issued a ruling on the anticipated motion to dismiss to be filed on March 3, 2009, and to the extent necessary, the parties will meet and confer to discuss any remaining issues relating to service and personal jurisdiction. One of the issues to be discussed during such meet and confer would be fixing a deadline for a pre-answer motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) or, in the alternative, fixing a deadline for a time to answer.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

PURSUSANT TO STIPULATION,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Mark D. Gursky, am the ECF User whose ID and Password are being used to file:

ECF ATTESTATION

In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Mark C. Molumphy, Jordan Eth, and Jeffrey S. Gordon, have concurred in this filing.

20090204

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.