UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 13, 2012
TRAVIS J. CURRIER, AN INDIVIDUAL,
STRYKER SALES CORPORATION;
HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP, DBA STRYKER ORTHOPAEDICS, AND DOES 1-20, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Mendez United States District Court Judge
Alicia J. Donahue (SBN 117412) Amir Nassihi (SBN 235936) 2 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. One Montgomery, Suite 2700 3 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 4 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 email@example.com 5 firstname.lastname@example.org 6 Attorneys for Defendants STRYKER CORPORATION and HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP (erroneously 7 sued as Stryker Orthopaedics) 8 William F. Wright (SBN 109470) Victor X. Bertolani (SBN 146376) 9 Attorneys At Law 1731 "J" Street, Suite 250 Sacramento, California 95811 Telephone: (916) 442-8614 Facsimile: (916) 442-5679 email@example.com David A. Valerio (SBN 133568) Attorney at Law P.O. Box 4977 Auburn, California 95604 Telephone: (916) 401-0369 Attorneys for Plaintiff TRAVIS J. CURRIER
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO PLEAD OR OTHERWISE RESPOND STRYKER CORPORATION;
Whereas, on May 30, 2012, the Parties filed a stipulated request to continue the pretrial 2 scheduling order deadlines, to allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint to include Pfizer as a 3 Defendant. 4
Whereas, on May 31, 2012, this Court entered a stipulation to continue the pretrial 5 scheduling order deadlines, and allowed Plaintiff to amend his complaint as to the Parties by July 3, 6 2012, to add additional Defendant Pfizer and dismiss as Defendants Stryker Corporation and 7 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, on July 11, 2012, this Court granted Parties' stipulation to extend the time for Stryker Corporation and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. to respond to Plaintiff's complaint to August 14, 2012.
Whereas Co-Defendant Pfizer was recently served with Plaintiff's complaint and its response is currently due on September 10, 2012.
Whereas Plaintiff expects to dismiss Defendants Stryker Corporation and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. once Pfizer appears in this action and acknowledges it's role relative to the product.
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 35 days to September 18, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
John A. Mendez
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.