Joseph v. Stryker Corp.
This text of Joseph v. Stryker Corp. (Joseph v. Stryker Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Bincymol Joseph, No. 2:18-CV-00370-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Stryker Corporation, et. al, 1S Defendants. 16 17 Defendant Davis Tool moves to dismiss the claims plaintiff Bincymol Joseph brings 18 | against it. Mot., ECF No. 46. Davis Tool argues it should be dismissed because Ninth Circuit 19 | precedent and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) require this court to apply the law of the 20 | California Doe statute, which dictates the rule for extending the statute of limitations. Reply at 2, 21 | ECF No. 49 (citing Lindley v. General Electric Co., 780 F.2d 797 (9th Cir. 1986)). As this 22 | argument was raised for the first time in a reply brief, the court orders Joseph to file a sur- 23 | reply, no more than five pages in length, within seven days of this order. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: September 13, 2021.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Joseph v. Stryker Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-v-stryker-corp-caed-2021.