The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Mendez United States District Court Judge
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO PLEAD OR OTHERWISE RESPOND
Whereas, on May 30, 2012, the parties filed a stipulated request to continue the pretrial scheduling order deadlines, to allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint to include Pfizer as a Defendant.
Whereas, on May 31, 2012, this Court entered a stipulation to continue the pretrial scheduling order deadlines, and allowed Plaintiff to amend his complaint as to the parties by July 3, 2012, to add additional defendant Pfizer and dismiss as defendants Stryker Corporation and
Howmedica Osteonics Corp. as soon as Plaintiff obtained further confirmation that Stryker 8 Corporation and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. were not the manufacturers of the subject device. 9 Whereas, on July 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint and included Pfizer as a Defendant, in addition to Defendants Stryker Corporation and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. Whereas, Stryker Corporation and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. responses to Plaintiff's complaint are currently due on July 17, 2012.*fn1
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel and pursuant to Civil Local Rules 143 and 144 that the time for Defendants STRYKER CORPORATION and HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP (erroneously sued as Stryker Orthopaedics) to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is extended by 28 days to and including August 14, 2012.
Dated: July 10, 2012 ATTORNEYS AT LAW By: _ /s/_ William F. Wright _ WILLIAM F. WRIGHT Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: July 10, 2012 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. By: ______/s/__Amir Nassihi_ ______ ALICIA J. DONAHUE AMIR NASSIHI Attorneys for Defendants STRYKER CORPORATION AND HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP (erroneously sued as Stryker Orthopaedics)