Grenzebach, et al v. EHC Management LLC, et al

Filing 37

ORDER STAYING ACTION signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 5/3/11 ORDERING this matter is stayed pending a ruling on the Wehlage motions. The pending motions now before the Court will be held in abeyance until after a decision on the Wehlage m otions have been issued. The currently scheduled hearing date of 5/5/11 for the motions before this Court are accordingly vacated. The parties are directed to notify the Court not later than 10 days following the date a ruling has been made by the Northern District in the Wehlage matter. The parties are further directed to attach a copy of the Northern District's ruling to their notification in that regard. Finally, in the event that no ruling has been made on the Wehlage motions, the parties are directed to file a Status Report not later than 60 days following the date of this Order to advise this Court of where matters stand.(Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

PHYLLIS GRENZEBACH as a
surviving heir of Robert
Anderson, and KATHLEEN
RYAN as a surviving heir
of Michael Mergen, on
behalf of themselves and a
class of similarly-situated
persons,

No. 2:11-cv-00197-MCE-DAD

15
Plaintiffs,
16
ORDER STAYING ACTION

v.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

EHC Management, LLC;
Evergreen at Arvin, LLC;
Evergreen at Chico, LLC;
Evergreen at Fullerton, LLC;
Evergreen at Lakeport, LLC;
Evergreen at Oroville, LLC;
Evergreen at Petaluma, LLC;
Evergreen at Salinas, LLC;
Evergreen at Tracy, LLC;
Evergreen at Heartwood Avenue,
LLC; Evergreen at Springs
Road, LLC; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive,

24
Defendants.
25
26
27

----oo0oo----

28
1

1

Presently before the Court are two motions to dismiss filed

2

by Defendants in this action, which alleges noncompliance with

3

California’s minimum staffing requirements for skilled nursing

4

facilities.

5

case, Wehlage v. EmpRes Healthcare, Inc., et al., N.D. Cal. Case

6

No. 4:10-cv-058390-CW filed in 2010 prior to commencement of the

7

instant lawsuit.

8

remedies, that this matter be stayed pending disposition of the

9

Wehlage action, since both cases involve similar class-wide

Defendants have brought to the Court’s attention a

Defendants request, among other potential

10

claims that inadequate nursing levels violated residents’ rights

11

under California Business and Professions Code § 1430(b), and

12

further both entail alleged violations of California Business and

13

Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq.

14

according to the defense, the Defendants in both lawsuits are

15

markedly similar.

16

In addition,

Plaintiffs have agreed, by way of opposition to Defendants’

17

Motion, that this matter be stayed pending the outcome of motions

18

to dismiss in Wehlage that were heard on April 7, 2011 and turn

19

upon similar abstention issues.

20

economy may be served by awaiting the Northern District’s ruling

21

on those motions, particular since coordination of both lawsuits

22

may result.1

23

///

24

///

25

///

Plaintiffs argue that judicial

26
1

27
28

Interestingly, while Defendants had requested a stay as
part of their requested relief, Plaintiffs now represent to the
Court that Defendants declined to stipulate to staying the matter
once Plaintiffs agreed to do so.
2

1

The Court agrees that this matter should be stayed pending a

2

ruling on the Wehlage motions.

3

with the motions to dismiss now before the Court (ECF No. 22 and

4

23) held in abeyance until after a decision on the Wehlage

5

motions has been issued.

6

May 5, 2011 for the motions before this Court are accordingly

7

vacated.

8
9

The case is accordingly stayed,

The currently scheduled hearing date of

The parties are directed to notify the Court not later than
ten (10) days following the date a ruling has been made by the

10

Northern District in the Wehlage matter.

11

directed to attach a copy of the Northern District’s ruling to

12

their notification in that regard.

13

ruling has been made on the Wehlage motions, the parties are

14

directed to file a Status Report not later than sixty (60) days

15

following the date of this Order to advise this Court of where

16

matters stand.

17
18

The parties are further

Finally, in the event that no

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 3, 2011

19
20
21

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3