Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00868/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00868-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karolina Christensen
Plaintiff
Merck & Co., Inc.
Defendant
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
Defendant
Organon & Co.
Defendant
Organon LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

Case No. 2:22-cv-00868-DAD-EPG

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO 

PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 144

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

ALEXANDER G. CALFO (SBN 152891)

acalfo@kslaw.com

JULIA E. ROMANO (SBN 260857)

jromano@kslaw.com

KING & SPALDING LLP

633 West Fifth Street

Suite 1600

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Telephone: +1 213 443 4355

Facsimile: +1 213 443 4310

SHANNON E. BEAMER (SBN 331289)

sebeamer@venable.com

VENABLE LLP

2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Telephone: +1 310 229 9682

Facsimile: +1 310 229 9901

Attorneys for Defendants

MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP

& DOHME CORP.1; ORGANON & CO.;

and ORGANON LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAROLINA CHRISTENSEN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERCK & CO., INC., a New Jersey 

Corporation; MERCK SHARP & DOHME 

CORP., a New Jersey Corporation; 

ORGANON & CO., a Delaware Corporation; 

ORGANON LLC, a Delaware Limited 

Liability Company; and DOES 1-10, 

Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-00868-DAD-EPG

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

EXTEND DEFENDANTS MERCK & CO., 

INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., 

ORGANON & CO., AND ORGANON 

LLC’S TIME TO RESPOND TO 

PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL COMPLAINT 

PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 144

1 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. is now known as Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC.

Case 2:22-cv-00868-KES-EPG Document 10 Filed 06/22/22 Page 1 of 4
- 1 - Case No. 2:22-cv-00868-DAD-EPG

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO 

PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 144

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

Plaintiff Karolina Christensen (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp 

& Dohme Corp., Organon & Co., and Organon LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through the 

undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Stipulation pursuant to Local Rule 144 as follows:

1. WHEREAS Plaintiff filed this civil action against Defendants in the Superior Court of 

the State of California for the County of Plumas on March 4, 2022; 

2. WHEREAS, Plaintiff served Defendants with a copy of the Summons and Complaint 

on April 20, 2022;

3. WHEREAS Defendants removed the case to this Court on May 20, 2022 pursuant to 

its Notice of Removal and Removal of Action within 30 days of service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446 

(see Dkt. No. 1); 

4. WHEREAS, on May 26, 2022, the Parties filed a joint stipulation to extend 

Defendants’ time to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint to June 24, 2022 (see Dkt. No. 6);

5. WHEREAS, on May 27, 2022, the Honorable District Judge Dale A. Drozd issued an 

Order deeming this case related to Ramos v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al., 1:22-cv-00430-DAD-EPG; 

Wylie v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al., 2:22-cv-00604-DAD-EPG; Hobbs v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al., 2:22-

cv-00662-DAD-EPG; and Edwards, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al., 1:22-cv-00433-DAD-EPG 

within the meaning of Local Rule 123 and re-assigned the case to Judge Drozd and Magistrate Judge 

Grosjean (see Dkt. No. 7);

6. WHEREAS Defendants’ motions to dismiss in Ramos v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al., 

1:22-cv-00430-DAD-EPG; Wylie v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al., 2:22-cv-00604-DAD-EPG; Hobbs v. 

Merck & Co., Inc. et al., 2:22-cv-00662-DAD-EPG; and Edwards, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al., 

1:22-cv-00433-DAF-EPG (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “related cases”) are currently 

pending and set to be heard on July 5, 2022 (Wylie) and July 19, 2022 (Ramos, Hobbs and Edwards);

7. WHEREAS, the Parties agree that, in the interests of efficiency, Defendants’ last day 

to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint in this case should be extended to a 

date after the Court has decided the pending motions to dismiss in the related cases, which is the 

reason the Parties have selected July 26, 2022 as the new proposed deadline; and

///

Case 2:22-cv-00868-KES-EPG Document 10 Filed 06/22/22 Page 2 of 4
- 2 - Case No. 2:22-cv-00868-DAD-EPG

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO 

PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 144

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

8. WHEREAS the Parties agree and respectfully request that Defendants’ last day to 

answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint be extended to July 26, 2022, without 

prejudice to, or waiver of, any rights otherwise available to the Parties herein, including but not 

limited to Defendants’ right to challenge service, jurisdiction, venue, or assert any other defenses 

applicable at law, in equity or otherwise.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: June 21, 2022 KING & SPALDING LLP

/s/ Julia E. Romano

Attorneys for Defendants

DATED: June 21, 2022 BOUCHER LLP

/s/ Shehnaz M. Bhujwala

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:22-cv-00868-KES-EPG Document 10 Filed 06/22/22 Page 3 of 4
- 3 - Case No. 2:22-cv-00868-DAD-EPG

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO 

PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 144

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

ORDER

Having considered the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 8), and in the interest of efficiency and 

judicial economy, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants shall file their response to Plaintiff’s complaint within fourteen (14) days of 

entry of an order resolving the motions to dismiss currently pending in Ramos v. Merck & 

Co., Inc. et al., 1:22-cv-00430-DAD-EPG; Wylie v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al., 2:22-cv00604-DAD-EPG; Hobbs v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al., 2:22-cv-00662-DAD-EPG; and 

Edwards, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al., 1:22-cv-00433-DAD-EPG;

2 and

2. The Initial Scheduling Conference currently set for September 22, 2022 (see ECF No. 4) 

is VACATED. Within seven (7) days of Defendants’ response to the complaint, the 

parties shall jointly contact Courtroom Deputy Michelle Rooney 

(mrooney@caed.uscourts.gov) to reset the Initial Scheduling Conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2022 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2 To the extent separate orders are issued, the fourteen-day deadline shall run from entry of the last order.

Case 2:22-cv-00868-KES-EPG Document 10 Filed 06/22/22 Page 4 of 4