Vietnam Ass'n for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin v. Dow Chemical Co.

E.D. New York

Vietnam Ass'n for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin v. Dow Chemical Co.

327 F. Supp. 2d 198, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15665

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedAugust 9, 2004

DocketNos. MDL 381, 04 CV 400(JBW)

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 327 F. Supp. 2d 198 (Vietnam Ass'n for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin v. Dow Chemical Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vietnam Ass'n for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin v. Dow Chemical Co., 327 F. Supp. 2d 198, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15665 (E.D.N.Y. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.

It was ordered that, upon the expiration of a six-month discovery period, the parties submit preliminary motions in this ‘ case by September 10, 2004. See In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 2004 WL 1196682 (E.D.N.Y. Mar.19, 2004). On August 2, 2004, the court granted a request of the parties to extend the briefing schedule.

The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York was to be served with copies of all papers in this action (Order of Feb. 9, 2004) and was requested to appear as an observer (Order of Feb. 17, 2004). The instant litigation raises important issues of law. See, e.g., Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2739, 159 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004); In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 304 F.Supp.2d 404 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (preliminary ruling on government contractor defense); In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 220 F.R.D. 22 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (denying motion to amend complaint); In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 304 F.Supp.2d 442 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (upholding removal under the federal officer removal statute). The government is invited to submit a brief as [199]*199amicus curiae on such issues as it deems of interest.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.

It was ordered that, upon the expiration of a six-month discovery period, the parties submit preliminary motions in this ‘ case by September 10, 2004. See In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 2004 WL 1196682 (E.D.N.Y. Mar.19, 2004). On August 2, 2004, the court granted a request of the parties to extend the briefing schedule.

The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York was to be served with copies of all papers in this action (Order of Feb. 9, 2004) and was requested to appear as an observer (Order of Feb. 17, 2004). The instant litigation raises important issues of law. See, e.g., Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2739, 159 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004); In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 304 F.Supp.2d 404 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (preliminary ruling on government contractor defense); In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 220 F.R.D. 22 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (denying motion to amend complaint); In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 304 F.Supp.2d 442 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (upholding removal under the federal officer removal statute). The government is invited to submit a brief as [199]*199amicus curiae on such issues as it deems of interest.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 F. Supp. 2d 198, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vietnam-assn-for-victims-of-agent-orangedioxin-v-dow-chemical-co-nyed-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack