Joseph v. Stryker Corp. ( 2021 )

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.