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.

Edward Baltazar, et al. v. Mckesson Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION


April 10, 2013

EDWARD BALTAZAR, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MCKESSON CORPORATION, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe _ United States Magistrate Judge

Carolyn Taylor, Esq. (SBN 159347) ctaylor@mpplaw.com Tammara N. Tukloff, Esq. (SBN 192200) ttukloff@mpplaw.com MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 500 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 557-0404 Facsimile: (619) 557-0460 Attorneys for Defendants BRENN DISTRIBUTION, INC. f/k/a PROPST DISTRIBUTION, INC. f/k/a QUALITEST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and BRENN MANUFACTURING, INC. f/k/a VINTAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS' TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO REMAND; ORDER

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' Complaint was filed in Fresno County Superior Court on November 15, 2012;

WHEREAS, this action was removed by Defendants BRENN DISTRIBUTION, INC. f/k/a PROPST DISTRIBUTION, INC. f/k/a QUALITEST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and BRENN MANUFACTURING, INC. f/k/a 12cv01917.o.baltazar.stip.order.BAM.DCL 1 1:12-CV-01917-AWI-BAM VINTAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 26, 2012 [Docket No. 1]; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand on January 31, 2013 [Docket No. 9], and the hearing on Plaintiffs Remand Motion set for March 15, 2013 has been stayed pending a decision from the MDL;

WHEREAS, various defendants have been served in the intervening time period with response deadlines likely to occur prior to the ruling on the pending motion to remand;

IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND STIPULATED by and between Defendants and Plaintiffs, through their respective attorneys of record, that:

In the interest of judicial economy, and upon the Court's entry of an order upon this stipulation (Proposed Order submitted concurrently herewith), any Defendants who have an upcoming deadline to respond to the Complaint shall have that deadline continued until thirty (30) days after the entry of any court order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. If Plaintiffs' Remand Motion is granted, the parties agree that the time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint shall be governed by the California Code of Civil Procedure, stipulation of counsel, and/or other court order.

ORDER

Based on the above stipulation, and for good cause shown, the Court finds the Stipulated Request is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The deadline for any Defendant to respond to the Complaint shall be continued until thirty (30) days after the entry of any order of this Court which denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand; and

2. Should Plaintiffs' Remand Motion be granted, Defendants' time to respond to the Complaint shall be governed by the California Code of Civil Procedure, stipulation of counsel, and/or other court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130410

© 1992-2013 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.