From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rhodes v. Sutter Health

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION
Apr 19, 2012
Case No. 2:12 CV-00013-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 2:12 CV-00013-WBS-DAD

04-19-2012

BETH A. RHODES, M.D., Plaintiff, v. SUTTER HEALTH, A California Corporation, SUTTER GOULD MEDICAL FOUNDATION, a California Corporation, THE GOULD MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California Corporation, Defendants.

LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. MURPHY P. Bobby Shukla Attorneys for Plaintiff BETH A. RHODES, M.D. DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP Carla J. Hartley Danielle L. Tizol Attorneys for Defendant GOULD MEDICAL GROUP, INC


DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP

CARLA J. HARTLEY (SBN 117213)

DANIELLE L. TIZOL (SBN 259702)

Attorneys for Defendant

GOULD MEDICAL GROUP, INC.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER TO FURTHER EXTEND TIME

FOR DEFENDANT GOULD MEDICAL GROUP

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

PARTIES through their respective counsel, stipulate as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 16, 2012.
2. On April 2, 2012, the Court approved the Parties' Stipulation to further amendments of the First Amended Complaint and ordered that responsive pleadings be due no later than April 17, 2012.
3. On April 16, 2012, Defendants Sutter Health and Sutter Gould Medical Foundation ("Sutter Defendants") filed a Motion to Dismiss.
4. Requiring Gould Medical Group to file responsive pleadings now and again after Sutter Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is ruled on will create unnecessary expense to both parties and waste valuable court resources.
5. Parties stipulate to further extend time for the Group to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint until after a ruling on the Sutter Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or any further amended Complaint, if any, is filed by Plaintiff in response to the Motion to Dismiss.

LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. MURPHY

_____________

P. Bobby Shukla

Attorneys for Plaintiff

BETH A. RHODES, M.D.

DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP

_____________

Carla J. Hartley

Danielle L. Tizol

Attorneys for Defendant

GOULD MEDICAL GROUP, INC

ORDER

IT HEREBY ORDERED that the time for Gould Medical Group to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint is extended until ten days after a ruling on the Sutter Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or ten days after any further amended Complaint, if any, is filed by Plaintiff in response to the Motion to Dismiss, whichever date is later.

____________________

WILLIAM B. SHUBB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Rhodes v. Sutter Health

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION
Apr 19, 2012
Case No. 2:12 CV-00013-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2012)
Case details for

Rhodes v. Sutter Health

Case Details

Full title:BETH A. RHODES, M.D., Plaintiff, v. SUTTER HEALTH, A California…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION

Date published: Apr 19, 2012

Citations

Case No. 2:12 CV-00013-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2012)