Filed: May 11, 2015
Latest Update: May 11, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO CALIFORNIA STATE COURT TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LLC (sued herein as "Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C."), and JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (sued herein as "Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.") (collectively, "Defendants"), and Plaintiff MICHAEL
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO CALIFORNIA STATE COURT TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LLC (sued herein as "Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C."), and JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (sued herein as "Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.") (collectively, "Defendants"), and Plaintiff MICHAEL ..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO CALIFORNIA STATE COURT
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LLC (sued herein as "Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C."), and JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (sued herein as "Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.") (collectively, "Defendants"), and Plaintiff MICHAEL FRANCIS BREENE ("Plaintiff") (Defendants and Plaintiff are referred to as "the Parties") hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Case to California State Court is currently set for hearing on May 21, 2015;
2. The Parties continue to meet and confer regarding information evidencing Plaintiff's alleged use of Levaquin® and to determine whether certain legal issues related to the Motion to Remand may be narrowed prior to the hearing before this Court;
3. Accordingly, the Parties have agreed that there is good cause to continue the Motion to Remand Case to California State Court, in accordance with Judge Nunley's civil law and motion rules, to permit the Parties to further meet and confer;
4. No other scheduling modifications have been issued on this Motion, either by stipulation or by Court order;
5. Therefore, the Parties stipulate and agree that hearing date on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to California State Court will be continued from May 21, 2015 to June 18, 2015. Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Case to California State Court will be due on or before June 4, 2015 and Plaintiff's Reply papers will be due on or before June 11, 2015.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
Having read and considered the Parties' Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue the Hearing for Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Case to California State Court and for good cause shown,
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, the Court hereby continues the Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Case to California State Court from May 21, 2015 to June 18, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 15th Floor, 501 I Street Sacramento, California 95814. Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Case to California State Court shall be due on or before June 4, 2015 and Plaintiff's Reply papers shall be due on or before June 11, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
