From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Joseph v. Stryker Corp.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 13, 2021
2:18-CV-00370-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2021)

Opinion

2:18-CV-00370-KJM-CKD

09-13-2021

Bincymol Joseph, Plaintiff, v. Stryker Corporation, et. al, Defendants.


ORDER

Defendant Davis Tool moves to dismiss the claims plaintiff Bincymol Joseph brings against it. Mot., ECF No. 46. Davis Tool argues it should be dismissed because Ninth Circuit precedent and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) require this court to apply the law of the California Doe statute, which dictates the rule for extending the statute of limitations. Reply at 2, ECF No. 49 (citing Lindley v. General Electric Co., 780 F.2d 797 (9th Cir. 1986)). As this argument was raised for the first time in a reply brief, the court orders Joseph to file a sur-reply, no more than five pages in length, within seven days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Joseph v. Stryker Corp.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 13, 2021
2:18-CV-00370-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2021)
Case details for

Joseph v. Stryker Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Bincymol Joseph, Plaintiff, v. Stryker Corporation, et. al, Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 13, 2021

Citations

2:18-CV-00370-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2021)