Cheshier v. Eli Lilly and Company

Filing 15

RELATED CASE ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 1/23/2015 ORDERING that actions 1:14-cv-01265-GEB-SKO and 2:14-cv-01890-WBS-CKD are RELATED. Therefore, action 2:14-cv-01890-WBS-CKD is reassigned to District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. and Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto for all further proceedings, and any date currently set in the reassigned case is VACATED. Henceforth the caption on documents filed in the reassigned case shall show the initials "GEB-SKO." Further, a Status Conference is scheduled in 2:14-cv-01890 before the Judge Burrell on 2/23/2015, at 9:00 a.m. A joint status report shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DEANNA CHESHIER,

9
10
11
12

15

v.

18

RELATED CASE ORDER

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, an
Indiana corporation,
Defendant.
CARL WOODRUFF and PENNY
WOODRUFF,

No.

2:14-cv-01890-WBS-CKD

Plaintiffs,

16
17

1:14-cv-01265-GEB-SKO

Plaintiff,

13
14

No.

v.
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, an
Indiana corporation,

19

Defendant.

20
21

Defendant filed a “Notice of Related Cases” in which it

22

states:

23

questions of fact and the same question of law . . . and [their]

24

assignment to the same Judge or Magistrate Judge is likely to

25

effect a substantial savings of judicial effort, either because

26

the same result should follow in both actions or otherwise.”

27

(Notice of Related Cases 1:3-8, ECF No. 13.) Defendant further

“the

[above-referenced]

28
1

action[s]

involve[]

similar

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

states:
On August 11, 2014, plaintiff Deanna
Cheshier commenced [Case No. 1:14-cv-01265GEB-SKO]
against
Lilly.
The
operative
complaint alleges that plaintiff suffered
injuries as a result of her use of Cymbalta.
The complaint alleges causes of action for
(1) negligence; (2) strict product liability
– design defect; (3) strict product liability
– failure to warn; (4) strict product
liability; (5) negligent misrepresentation;
(6) fraud; (7) breach of implied warranty;
and (8) violation of Business and Professions
Code §§ 17200, et seq. The gravamen of the
claims is that defendant Lilly failed to warn
about the risks associated with cessation of
Cymbalta.
On August 11, 2014, plaintiffs Carl
Woodruff and Penny Woodruff commenced the
action styled Carl Woodruff, et al., v. Eli
Lilly and Company, (E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:14cv-01890-WBS-CKD)
against
Lilly.
The
operative complaint alleges that plaintiffs
suffered injuries as a result of Carl
Woodruff’s use of Cymbalta. The complaint
alleges causes of action for (1) negligence;
(2) strict product liability – design defect;
(3) strict product liability – failure to
warn; (4) strict product liability; (5)
negligent misrepresentation; (6) fraud; (7)
breach of implied warranty; (8) violation of
Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et
seq., and (9) loss of consortium. The
gravamen of the claims is that Lilly failed
to warn about the risks associated with
cessation of Cymbalta. . . .
As evidenced above, both cases call for
a determination of the same or substantially
related or similar questions of law and fact.
As such, litigating these cases separately in
two
different
courtrooms
will
create
substantial duplication of labor for the
judges assigned to each respective case and
may
result
in
inconsistent
rulings.
Accordingly, the cases should be related and
transferred to a single judge for further
proceedings.
(Id. at 1:12-2:10.)

28
2

1

Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals they

2

are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123. Under the

3

regular

4

assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom the first

5

filed action was assigned. Therefore, action 2:14-cv-01890-WBS-

6

CKD is reassigned to District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. and

7

Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto for all further proceedings,

8

and any date currently set in the reassigned case is VACATED.

9

Henceforth the caption on documents filed in the reassigned case

10

practice

of

this

Court,

related

cases

are

generally

shall show the initials “GEB-SKO.”

11

Further, a Status Conference is scheduled in 2:14-cv-

12

01890 before the undersigned judge on February 23, 2015, at 9:00

13

a.m.

14

(14) days prior.1

15

A joint status report shall be filed no later than fourteen

The

Clerk

of

the

Court

shall

make

appropriate

16

adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for

17

this reassignment.

18

Dated:

January 23, 2015

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in the
preparation of the Joint Status Report does not excuse the other parties from
their obligation to timely file a status report in accordance with this Order.
In the event a party fails to participate as ordered, the party timely
submitting the status report shall include a declaration explaining why it was
unable to obtain the cooperation of the other party or parties.

3