Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Spindler v. Johnson & Johnson Corp.

October 5, 2010

BARTON SPINDLER, DEBORAH UNDERWOOD AND VALERIE BURKS, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CORP., OMNICARE, INC., AND DOES 1-10., INCLUSIVE. DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge

Hon. Jeffrey S. White

JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: PAGE LIMITATION

Burks and defendants Johnson & Johnson and Omnicare, Inc. (the "parties") hereby jointly move to extend the page limitations for the briefs on defendants' motions to dismiss, consistent with the parties' Joint Stipulation Regarding Page Limitation ("Joint Stipulation"). Good cause exists for this request because the defendants have already filed briefs in support of their motions to dismiss consistent with the page limitation set by Judge Chesney, and the parties are filing herewith a joint stipulation consistent with Civil L.R. 7-12 agreeing that the page limitation previously set by Judge In support of this motion, the parties state as follows:

1. Judge Chesney's page limitations were 25 pages for a motion to dismiss, 25 pages for an opposition, and 15 pages for a reply.

plaintiffs' first amended complaint that was consistent with the 25-page limitation set by Judge

3. On September 7, 2010, Defendant Omnicare, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' first amended complaint that was consistent with the 25-page limitation set by Judge

4. Concurrent with this motion, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing that the page limitations set by Judge Chesney shall apply to the opposition and reply briefs to be filed in connection with these motions to dismiss.

motions to dismiss, which have already been filed, and plaintiffs submit it would be unfair to apply a page limitation to their opposition different than that applicable at the time the defendants filed their motions to dismiss.

6. Pursuant to a stipulation and proposed order filed concurrently herewith, the defendants will refile their motions to dismiss originally filed on September 7, 2010. Pursuant to that stipulation, the parties will request that the hearing on the motions be set for December 3, 2010.

Chesney shall apply to future briefing with respect to these motions to dismiss.

2. On September 7, 2010, Defendant Johnson & Johnson filed a motion to dismiss the Chesney.

Chesney.

5. The parties believe that it would be inefficient to require the defendants to revise their

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the parties state that good cause exists for granting of this motion and respectfully request that the Court apply the page ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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