Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03088/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03088-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LISA OEHRING, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CORDIS CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-03088-JSW 

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND 

DENYING, IN PART, MOTION TO 

STAY, SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE ON MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS AND SETTING MOTIONS 

FOR HEARING ON AUGUST 5, 2016 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 7, 13, 20, 21 

Now before the Court for consideration is Plaintiffs’ motion to stay. (Docket No. 21.) 

The Court concludes a response from Defendants is not warranted, for the reasons set forth in the 

remainder of this Order. 

On June 13, 2016, Defendant Cordis Corporation filed a motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 

7.) Based on that filing date, Plaintiff’s opposition was due on June 27, 2016, even though this 

case was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned Judge. (See Docket No. 10.) Defendant 

Cardinal Health filed a motion to dismiss on June 16, 2016, and under the Local Rules, Plaintiffs’ 

opposition to that motion is due on June 30, 2016. 

On June 24, 2016, instead of filing an opposition to Cordis’ motion, Plaintiffs filed a 

motion to stay, in which they ask that the Court stay consideration of the motions to dismiss in 

favor of their motion to remand, filed that same date. In the alternative, Plaintiffs ask that the 

Court grant them an extension to respond to the motions to dismiss. Each of these motions was 

corrected in a non-substantive manner on June 27, 2016, and are set to be heard on July 29, 2016, 

with Cardinal’s motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiffs filed the motion to stay shortly before the date their opposition to Cordis’ motion 

Case 3:16-cv-03088-EMC Document 26 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

wa

adm

De

res

299

to a

Co

tha

the

Pla

reDe

201

tim

res

mo

Co

by 

arg

Da

as due, but di

ministrative 

efendants are

spond to thei

The Co

9 U.S. 248, 2

a ruling on t

urt does not 

at, in the inte

e motion to r

aintiffs’ moti

noticed its m

The bri

efendant’s op

16. 

In light

me required b

solved on its 

otions to dism

urt shall gra

July 20, 201

If the C

gument, it wi

IT IS S

ated: June 29

id not seek to

motion to ex

e not require

ir motions to

ourt has the i

254 (1936). 

he motions t

find good c

erests of judi

remand on th

ion to reman

motion to dis

efing schedu

pposition sha

t of the fact t

by the Local 

merits, the C

miss. Plainti

ant Defendan

16. 

Court finds th

ill notify the

SO ORDER

9, 2016 

o have it hea

xtend the de

d to respond

o dismiss hav

nherent pow

 The Court a

to dismiss, b

ause to stay 

icial econom

he same date

nd and Cordi

smiss. 

ule on Plaint

all be due on

that Plaintiff

Rules, and b

Court will gr

iffs shall file

nts an extens

hat any of th

e parties in ad

RED. 

2

ard on shorte

adline to res

d to the motio

ve passed. 

wer to manag

agrees that th

because it im

briefing on 

my and efficie

e. Therefore

is’ motion to

tiffs’ motion

n July 8, 201

fs have not fi

because the 

rant Plaintiff

e their oppos

sion of time t

he motions ar

dvance of th

___

JEF

Un

ened time. T

spond to Def

on to stay un

ge its own do

he motion to

mplicates this

the motions

ency, it shal

e, the Court C

o dismiss to 

n to remand s

6. Plaintiffs

filed an oppo

Court conclu

ffs a brief ext

sition briefs 

to submit th

re suitable fo

he hearing da

__________

FFREY S. W

nited States D

They also di

fendants’ mo

ntil well afte

ocket. See L

o remand sho

s Court’s jur

s to dismiss. 

l hear both m

CONTINUE

August 5, 20

shall remain

s’ reply shal

osition to Co

udes that the

tension to re

by no later t

heir reply bri

or dispositio

ate. 

___________

WHITE 

District Judg

d not file an

otions. Thus

er Plaintiffs’ 

Landis v. N. A

ould be cons

risdiction. H

 Rather, the 

motions to d

ES the hearin

016, when C

n unchanged 

ll be due on J

ordis’ motion

e motion sho

espond to De

than July 8, 2

efs, which m

on without or

__________

ge 

n

s, the 

deadlines to

Am. Co., 

sidered prior

However, the

Court finds 

dismiss and 

ng on 

Cordis has 

and 

July 15, 

n within the 

ould be 

efendants’ 

2016. The 

may be filed 

ral 

________ 

o

r

e

Case 3:16-cv-03088-EMC Document 26 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 2