Connelly v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. et al
| Richard Connelly |
| St. Jude Medical, Inc., Abbott Laboratories and Pacesetter, Inc. |
| 5:2017cv02006 |
| April 11, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Jose Office |
| Monterey |
| Nathanael M. Cousins |
| Edward J. Davila |
| Personal Injury- Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1391 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
50
ORDER GRANTING 45 DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE-TO-WARN CLAIM. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/6/2018. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2018)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER GRANTING 39 STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/5/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2017)
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 29 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/23/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2017)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/12/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2017)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER GRANTING 31 STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/5/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2017)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER GRANTING 26 STIPULATION SELECTING PRIVATE ADR. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 6/23/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2017)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
