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.

State of Utah v. Mckesson Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


January 10, 2011

STATE OF UTAH,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MCKESSON CORPORATION,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Susan Illston United States District Judge

MELVIN R. GOLDMAN (CA SBN 34097) MGoldman@mofo.com JAMES P. BENNETT (CA SBN 65179) JBennett@mofo.com LORI SCHECHTER (CA SBN 139728) LSchechter@mofo.com PAUL FLUM (CA SBN 104424) PaulFlum@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Attorneys for Defendant McKESSON CORPORATION

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO OPPOSE AND REPLY TO MCKESSON'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2 for the Northern District of California, Defendant McKesson Corporation ("McKesson") and Plaintiff State of Utah ("Utah"), by and through their 21 undersigned attorneys, stipulate and request a time modification as follows:

WHEREAS, on December 22, 2010, McKesson filed its motion to dismiss the Complaint (the "Motion") in the above referenced matter (see Docket No. 14);

WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(a), McKesson noticed the hearing on the Motion for January 28, 2011;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a) and (c), Utah's opposition to the Motion is due on January 7, 2011, and McKesson's reply is due on January 14, 2011;

WHEREAS, on December 23, 2010, Utah requested a courtesy extension of one week to file its opposition;

WHEREAS, Utah also agreed to extend an extra week to McKesson on reply;

WHEREAS, a one-week extension on both the opposition and reply would make Utah's opposition due on January 14, 2011, McKesson's reply due on January 28, 2011, and would 6 require the hearing to be moved to February 11, 2011; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a)(2), the parties state that the only previous time modification in this action was the stipulated extension of time for McKesson to respond to the Complaint (see Docket No. 7);

NOW THEREFORE, SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE, through their counsel of record, as follows:

1. Utah shall file its opposition to McKesson's motion to dismiss the Complaint on or before January 14, 2011.

2. McKesson shall file its reply on or before January 28, 2011.

3. The hearing shall be moved to February 11, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

The case management conference has been continued to 2/11/11 at 2:30 p.m.

GENERAL ORDER 45 ATTESTATION

I, Paul Flum, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Time to Oppose and Reply to McKesson's Motion 4 to Dismiss. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Jeff D. Friedman 5 has concurred in this filing.

January 3, 2011 By: /s/ Paul Flum Paul Flum Counsel for Defendant MCKESSON CORPORATION

20110110

© 1992-2011 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.