From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Currier v. Stryker Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 11, 2012
Case No. 2:11-cv-01203-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 2:11-cv-01203-JAM-EFB

07-11-2012

TRAVIS J. CURRIER, an individual, Plaintiff, v. STRYKER CORPORATION; STRYKER SALES CORPORATION; HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP, dba STRYKER ORTHOPAEDICS, and DOES 1-20, Defendants.

Alicia J. Donahue (SBN 117412) Amir Nassihi (SBN 235936) SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. Attorneys for Defendants STRYKER CORPORATION and HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP (erroneously sued as Stryker Orthopaedics) William F. Wright (SBN 109470) Victor X. Bertolani (SBN 146376) Attorneys At Law David A. Valerio (SBN 133568) Attorney at Law Attorneys for Plaintiff TRAVIS J. CURRIER


Alicia J. Donahue (SBN 117412)

Amir Nassihi (SBN 235936)

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.

Attorneys for Defendants STRYKER CORPORATION

and HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP (erroneously

sued as Stryker Orthopaedics)

William F. Wright (SBN 109470)

Victor X. Bertolani (SBN 146376)

Attorneys At Law

David A. Valerio (SBN 133568)

Attorney at Law

Attorneys for Plaintiff

TRAVIS J. CURRIER

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 Corporation and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. were not the manufacturers of the subject device.

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.

Newly named defendant, Pfizer Inc. is yet to be served with the complaint.

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.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

By: _________________________

WILLIAM F. WRIGHT

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.

By: _________________________

ALICIA J. DONAHUE

AMIR NASSIHI

Attorneys for Defendants STRYKER

CORPORATION AND HOWMEDICA

OSTEONICS CORP (erroneously

sued as Stryker Orthopaedics)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________

JOHN A. MENDEZ

United States District Court Judge


Summaries of

Currier v. Stryker Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 11, 2012
Case No. 2:11-cv-01203-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2012)
Case details for

Currier v. Stryker Corp.

Case Details

Full title:TRAVIS J. CURRIER, an individual, Plaintiff, v. STRYKER CORPORATION…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 11, 2012

Citations

Case No. 2:11-cv-01203-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2012)