Schmuckley et al v. Rite Aid Corporation

Filing 94

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/29/17 ORDERING that Defendant shall file a Consolidated Motion to Dismiss both the State of California's Complaint and Loyd F. Schmuckley's First Amended Complaint on 01/19/18. Plaintiffs State of California and Loyd F. Schmuckley may file separate oppositions to the Consolidated Motion, and Defendant may file separate replies. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
TERA M. HEINTZ, State Bar No. 241414
[e-mail]
One Market Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
RITE AID CORPORATION

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ex rel. LLOYD
F. SCHMUCKLEY, JR.

13
vs.

RITE AID CORPORATION,

16

Defendant.

17
18
19

Complaint Filed:

September 21, 2017

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. LLOYD F.
SCHMUCKLEY, JR.,
Plaintiffs,

20
Vs.

21
22

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER
EXTENDING DEFENDANT RITE
AID CORPORATION’S TIME TO
FILE CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO
DISMISS STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S
COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION
AND RELATOR’S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,

14
15

Case No.: 2:12-cv-1699 KJM EFB

RITE AID CORPORATION,
Defendant.

23
24
25
26
27

Case No.: 2:12-cv-1699 KJM EFB

28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANT RITE AID CORPORATION’S TIME TO FILE CONSOLIDATED
MOTION TO DISMISS STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION AND RELATOR’S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
DB1/ 94477943.2

1

Plaintiff the State of California (“State”), qui tam relator Loyd Schmuckley (“Relator”),

2

and defendant Rite Aid Corporation (“Defendant,” and jointly with State and Relator, the

3

“Parties”) hereby enter into this joint stipulation and proposed order for the Court’s consideration:

4

RECITALS

5
6

WHEREAS, the State filed its Complaint-in-Intervention (“State’s Complaint”) with the
Court in this action on September 21, 2017 (Dkt. 57);

7

WHEREAS, Defendant agreed to waive formal service of the State’s Complaint and

8

summons upon it pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d), establishing Defendant’s deadline to respond to

9

the State’s Complaint as November 21, 2017 (Dkt. 80);

10
11

WHEREAS, Relator filed his First Amended Complaint (“Relator’s Complaint”) with the
Court in this action on September 28, 2017 (Dkt. 79);

12

WHEREAS, Defendant has agreed to waive formal service of Relator’s Complaint and

13

summons upon it pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) on November 20, 2017, establishing

14

Defendant’s deadline to respond to the Relator’s Complaint as January 19, 2018 (Dkt. 91);

15

WHEREAS, the Parties agree for the purposes of efficiency and judicial economy that

16

good cause exists for Defendant’s motions to dismiss the State’s Complaint and Relator’s

17

Complaint to be consolidated;

18

WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), the Parties may stipulate to one initial 28-day

19

extension of time for Defendant to respond to the State’s Complaint, but must obtain the Court’s

20

approval for any stipulated extension beyond 28 days;

21
22

WHEREAS, Defendant has made no prior request or stipulation to extend its deadline to
file its response to the State’s Complaint;

23

WHEREAS, none of the Parties is waiving any defense, right or claim by entering into

24

this stipulation.

25

///

26

///

27

///
1

28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

Case No.: 2:12-cv-1699 KJM EFB

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANT RITE AID CORPORATION’S TIME TO FILE CONSOLIDATED
MOTION TO DISMISS STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION AND RELATOR’S FIRST AMENDED
DB1/ 94477943.2

COMPLAINT

1

JOINT STIPULATION

2

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

3

1.

4
5

Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), Defendant may file a motion to dismiss the State’s

Complaint on December 19, 2018;
2.

Upon Court approval, stipulation no. 1 is superseded, and Defendant shall file a

6

consolidated motion to dismiss both the State’s Complaint and Relator’s Complaint

7

(“Consolidated Motion”) on January 19, 2018;

8
9
10
11

3.

The State and Relator may file separate oppositions to the Consolidated Motion,

and Defendant may file separate replies.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: November 20, 2017

12
13

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of the State of California

14

/s/ Emmanuel R. Salazar
Emmanuel R. Salazar
Deputy Attorney General

15

Attorneys for STATE OF CALIFORNIA

16

By

Dated: November 20, 2017

WATERS & KRAUS

17
By

18
19

Attorneys for Qui Tam Plaintiff
LOYD F. SCHMUCKLEY

20
21

/s/ William Paul Lawrence, II
William Paul Lawrence, II

Dated: November 20, 2017

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

22
By

23
24

/s/ Tera M. Heintz
Tera M. Heintz
Attorneys for Defendant
RITE AID CORPORATION

25
26
27

2

28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

Case No.: 2:12-cv-1699 KJM EFB

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANT RITE AID CORPORATION’S TIME TO FILE CONSOLIDATED
MOTION TO DISMISS STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION AND RELATOR’S FIRST AMENDED
DB1/ 94477943.2

COMPLAINT

1
2
3

ORDER
Based upon the stipulated agreement of the Parties, and the Court finding good cause
therefor pursuant to Local Rule 144(a),

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

5

Defendant shall file a Consolidated Motion to Dismiss both the State of California’s

6

Complaint and Loyd F. Schmuckley’s First Amended Complaint on January 19, 2018. Plaintiffs

7

State of California and Loyd F. Schmuckley may file separate oppositions to the Consolidated

8

Motion, and Defendant may file separate replies.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

DATED: November 29, 2017.

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

3

28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

Case No.: 2:12-cv-1699 KJM EFB

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANT RITE AID CORPORATION’S TIME TO FILE CONSOLIDATED
MOTION TO DISMISS STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION AND RELATOR’S FIRST AMENDED
DB1/ 94477943.2

COMPLAINT