Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01290/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01290-1/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERBERT L. PRICE

Plaintiff,

 v.

ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS,

L.P. et al.

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-01290 JSW

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

FOR ORDER OF DISMISSAL

AND ASTRAZENECA

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

STAY

The Court has before it for consideration Plaintiff’s Motion for Administrative Relief for

Order Approving Dismissal Without Prejudice, and Defendant’s Motion for Administrative

Relief to Stay Action Pending Transfer to Multidistrict Proceedings.

Northern District Civil Local Rule 7-11 sets forth the type of matters that are considered

proper subjects of a motion for administrative relief. Specifically, the rule provides:

during the course of case proceedings a party may require a Court order with

respect to miscellaneous administrative matters, not otherwise governed by a

federal statute, Federal or local rule or standing order of the assigned judge. 

These motions would include matters such as motions to exceed otherwise

applicable page limitations or motions to file documents under seal, for

example.

Although the Court has previously addressed administrative motions filed by other

plaintiffs in the many cases pending in this district against the Astrazeneca, the Court has

reconsidered its earlier decisions and concludes that this request is not a proper subject for a

motion for administrative relief. Further, while it is likely that the Astrazeneca Defendants’

filed their current motion as a motion for administrative relief in response to Plaintiff’s motion,

Case 3:06-cv-01290-JSW Document 18 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

2

again, the Court concludes the relief sought by that motion is not the proper subject of a motion

for administrative relief.

Accordingly, to the extent the parties request that this Court address these issues within

the time frame contemplated by Local Rule 79-5, those requests are DENIED. The Court does

not require further briefing on Plaintiff’s motion, which is complete. However, the parties shall

meet and confer to find a mutually agreeable hearing date on this Court’s regular law and

motion calendar. The opposition and reply briefs on Defendant’s motion to stay shall be filed

and served in accordance with the deadlines set forth in Local Rule 7-3. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01290-JSW Document 18 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 2