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

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/21/11 ORDERING 43 Motion to Continue Stay is granted. The parties are directed to notify the Court not later than ten days following the date a ruling has been made by the Northern District on the motions to dismiss now being held in abeyance pending mediation 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 sixty 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
----oo0oo---27
28

///
1

1

Through the present action, Plaintiffs allege noncompliance

2

with California’s minimum staffing requirements for skilled

3

nursing facilities.

4

attention a case, Wehlage v. EmpRes Healthcare, Inc., et al.,

5

N.D.Cal. Case No. 4:10-cv-058390-CW filed in 2010 prior to

6

commencement of the instant lawsuit.

7

this Court ordered the present action stayed pending disposition

8

of Wehlage.

9

inadequate nursing levels violated residents’ rights under

Defendants previously brought to the Court’s

By Order filed May 3, 2011,

Both cases involve similar class-wide claims that

10

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

11

allege violations of California Business and Professions Code

12

§§ 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq.

13

lawsuits also appear to be markedly similar.

14

to Plaintiffs, depending on how Wehlage proceeds in the Northern

15

District, they may opt to join their claims there and dismiss the

16

present case altogether.

17

The Defendants in both
Moreover, according

Now before the Court is a second motion, filed on behalf of

18

Plaintiffs, seeking a further stay of this matter.

The terms of

19

the previous stay held this case in abeyance until certain

20

motions to dismiss in Wehlage were adjudicated.

21

initial decision on those motions to dismiss was reached on

22

May 25, 2011, the court permitted the filing of a First Amended

23

Complaint and a second round of motions attacking that First

24

Amended Complaint ensued.

25

this Court that the September 22, 2011 hearing on those motions

26

has recently been vacated given the parties’ agreement to submit

27

the matter to mediation in the meantime.

28

///

Although an

Counsel for Plaintiffs have advised

2

1

Given the unsettled status of the Wehlage action, as well as

2

the real potential that the disposition of that claim could

3

profoundly affect how Plaintiffs opt to proceed forward with this

4

matter, the Court agrees that further stay of this case is

5

warranted.

6

(ECF No. 43) is accordingly GRANTED.1

7

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Court-Ordered Stay

The parties are directed to notify the Court not later than

8

ten (10) days following the date a ruling has been made by the

9

Northern District on the motions to dismiss now being held in

10

abeyance pending mediation in the Wehlage matter.

11

are further directed to attach a copy of the Northern District’s

12

ruling to their notification in that regard.

13

event that no ruling has been made on the Wehlage motions, the

14

parties are directed to file a Status Report not later than sixty

15

(60) days following the date of this Order to advise this Court

16

of where matters stand.

17
18

The parties

Finally, in the

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 21, 2011

19
20

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

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance,
the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.
Local Rule 230(h).
3