Sweeten, et al. v. Omni Family Health

Filing 8

STIPULATION and ORDER Extending Time for Defendant to Respond to Complaint; ORDER VACATING March 6, 2025 scheduling Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 01/06/2025. (Deputy Clerk CRB)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHEILA SWEETEN, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

OMNI FAMILY HEALTH,

15

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01464-CDB
ORDER ON STIPULATION EXTENDING
TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT
(Doc. 7)
ORDER VACATING MARCH 6, 2025,
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

16
17
18
19
20

Relevant Background

21

On October 22, 2024, Plaintiffs Sheila Sweeten and Corey Sweeten (collectively,

22

“Plaintiffs”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on behalf of themselves and a

23

putative class of others against Defendant Omni Family Health (“Defendant”) in the Superior

24

Court of the State of California, Kern County, Case No. BCV-24-103613. (Doc. 1). On

25

December 2, 2024, Defendant removed the action to this Court. (Id.). On December 6, 2024,

26

the parties stipulated pursuant to Local Rule 144(a) to extend by 28 days the time for Defendant

27

to respond to the complaint, up to and including January 6, 2025. (Doc. 5).

28

This action is one of several similar class action suits brought in or removed to this Court

1

in which Plaintiffs assert similar claims against Defendant. See, e.g., Gober Villatoro Guerra v.

2

Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01492-JLT-CDB (“Guerra”) (Doc. 6). In Guerra, the

3

Court noted the class action complaints here and the other Omni actions allege substantially

4

similar facts and nearly identical causes of action against Defendant. (Id. at 1-2) (“From review

5

of the several complaints, it appears these actions arise from a recent, alleged cyberattack

6

resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control

7

of Defendant (the ‘Data Breach’).”).

8

The Court ordered Defendant to file a Notice of Related Cases in accordance with Local

9

Rule 123(b) in Guerra and the identified Omni actions therein, including the instant action. (Id.

10

at 3). The Court further ordered the parties in Guerra to show cause why this action should or

11

should not be consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). (Id.). On

12

December 27, 2024, Defendant filed the Notice of Related Cases and identified as related, inter

13

alia, the instant action. (Guerra, Doc. 8 at ¶ 5). On December 30, 2024, the parties in Guerra

14

filed a joint status report in response to the Court’s show cause order. (Guerra, Doc. 9). Therein,

15

Defendant represents it intends to file a motion to substitute the United States in the matter and

16

all other related Omni matters. (Id. at 1).

17

The Guerra parties represent that they will file in the first filed of the Omni federal

18

actions – Ellen Pace v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01277-JLT-CDB – a joint

19

stipulation and proposed order consolidating and staying the Omni actions pending resolution of

20

the earlier of Defendant’s forthcoming motion to substitute or motions to remand in Abraham,

21

et al. v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01456-CDB (“Abraham”) (Abraham, Doc. 7) as

22

well as Scott Stevenson and Marcos Mantoya v. Omni Family Health, No. 1:24-cv-01459-CDB

23

(“Stevenson”) (Stevenson, Doc. 11). (Id. at 2).

24

Pending Stipulated Request

25

Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request to extend by 30 additional days

26

the time for Defendant to respond to the complaint, through and including February 5, 2025,

27

filed on January 3, 2025. (Doc. 7). The parties represent the requested extension will allow time

28

for other federal court actions filed against Defendant to be consolidated, which the parties
2

1

represent is being submitted by way of a stipulation for consolidation that, among other things,

2

proposes to stay all deadlines in the identified federal court actions and allow time for: (i) the

3

removal of the related actions pending in state court; (ii) the Court to rule upon a pending motion

4

for remand filed in the Stevenson action, which ruling shall apply to all the actions subject to

5

consolidation which were removed from state court; and (iii) the Court to rule on Defendant’s

6

forthcoming motion to substitute the United States in this case as a defendant pursuant to the

7

Federal Tort Claims Act, 42 U.S.C. § 233, which ruling shall apply to all the actions subject to

8

consolidation. (Doc. 7 at 3). The parties represent that good cause exists to grant the requested

9

extension in the efficiencies from allowing consolidation to occur and ruling on the pending

10

motions to substitute and to remand. (Id.).

11

Conclusion and Order

12

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

13

1. Defendant shall have until February 5, 2025, to respond to the complaint by filing

14

an answer or other responsive pleading. See Local Rule 144(a); and

15

2. The scheduling conference set for March 6, 2025 (Doc. 4) is VACATED to be reset

16

as necessary following ruling on the pending motions to remand in Stevenson and

17

Abraham and resolution of the issue of consolidation.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 6, 2025

___________________

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3