Snelson v. Omni Family Health

Filing 9

STIPULATION and ORDER Extending Time for Defendant to Respond to the Complaint; ORDER VACATING March 10, 2025, Scheduling Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 01/08/2025. (Deputy Clerk CRB)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

Case No. 1:24-cv-01480-JLT-CDB

LOIS SNELSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

14

OMNI FAMILY HEALTH,

15

Defendant.

ORDER ON STIPULATION EXTENDING
TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT
(Doc. 8)
ORDER VACATING MARCH 10, 2025,
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

16
17
18

Relevant Background

19

On October 31, 2024, Plaintiff Lois Snelson (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the

20

filing of a complaint on behalf of herself and a putative class of others against Defendant Omni

21

Family Health (“Defendant”) in the Superior Court of the State of California, Kern County,

22

entitled Lois Snelson v. Omni Family Health, Case No. BCV-24-103706. (Doc. 1). On

23

December 4, 2024, Defendant removed the action to this Court. (Id.). On December 5, 2024,

24

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

25

to respond to the complaint, up to and including January 8, 2025. (Doc. 5).

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

of Defendant (the ‘Data Breach’).”).

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

Pending Stipulated Request

23

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

24

the time for Defendant to respond to the complaint, through and including February 7, 2025,

25

filed on January 7, 2025. (Doc. 8). The parties represent the requested extension will allow time

26

for: (a) other federal court actions filed against Defendant to be consolidated; (b) the Court to

27

rule upon Defendant’s forthcoming motion to substitute the United States in this case as a

28

defendant pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 42 U.S.C. § 233; and (c) the Court to rule
2

1

upon the pending motions to remand. (Doc. 8 at 2). The parties represent that good cause exists

2

to grant the requested extension in the efficiencies from allowing consolidation to occur and

3

ruling on the pending motions to substitute and to remand. (Id.).

4

Conclusion and Order

5

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

6

1. Defendant shall have until February 7, 2025, to respond to the complaint by filing

7

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

8

2. The scheduling conference set for March 10, 2025 (Doc. 4) is VACATED to be reset

9

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

10

Abraham and resolution of the issue of consolidation.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 8, 2025

___________________

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3