Alcon Laboratories, Inc. et al v. Carlton et al

Filing 6

RELATED CASE 5 ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 11/19/2013. 13-CV-2389 LKK EFB is REASSIGNED to District Judge Burrell and Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney for all further proceedings. Henceforth, caption on reassigned case shall be 13-CV-2389 GEB CKD and Clerk shall make appropriate adjustment to compensate for reassignment. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 ALCON LABORATORIES, INC. and NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiffs, No. 2:13-cv-02372-GEB-CKD RELATED CASE ORDER v. STEPHEN CARLTON, District Attorney for the County of Shasta, in his official capacity; PAUL ZELLERBACH, District Attorney for the County of Riverside, in his official capacity; JAN SCULLY, District Attorney for the County of Sacramento, in her official capacity; ELIZABETH EGAN, District Attorney for the County of Fresno, in her official capacity; and TIM WARD, District Attorney for the County of Tulare, in his official capacity, 20 Defendants. 21 22 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 23 24 25 26 27 2:13-cv-02389-LKK-EFB Plaintiff, v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION; ALCON LABORATORIES, INC.; and DOES 1-20, Defendants. 28 1 1 Plaintiffs Alcon Laboratories, Inc. and Novartis 2 Pharmaceuticals Corporation filed a “Notice of Related Cases” in 3 which they state the above-entitled actions are related within 4 the meaning of Local Rule 123(a) for the following reasons: 5 1. Both actions involve the same parties, namely, District Attorneys for five California counties; Alcon Laboratories, Inc. (“Alcon”); and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC)[;] 6 7 8 2. Both actions are based on the same or similar claim involving Alcon’s and NPC’s alleged violation of California Business and Professions Code § 12606 and California Health and Safety Code § 110375 (the “Slack Fill Law”); and 9 10 11 3. Both actions involved similar questions of fact and the same question of law and assignment to the same Judge or Magistrate just is likely to effect a substantial savings of judicial effort because the same result should follow in both actions. 12 13 14 15 (Notice of Related Cases 2:10-18, ECF No. 5.) 16 Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals they 17 are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123. Under the 18 regular 19 assigned to the judge and magistrate judge to whom the first 20 filed action was assigned. Therefore, action 2:13-cv-02389 is 21 reassigned to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. and Magistrate Judge 22 Carolyn K. Delaney for all further proceedings, and any date 23 currently set in the reassigned case is VACATED. Henceforth the 24 caption on documents filed in the reassigned case shall show the 25 initials “GEB-CKD.” 26 practice Further, of a this Court, Status related Conference cases is are scheduled generally in the 27 reassigned case before the undersigned judge on March 3, 2014, at 28 9:00 a.m. A joint status report shall be filed no later than 2 1 fourteen (14) days prior.1 2 The Clerk of the Court shall make appropriate 3 adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for 4 this reassignment. 5 Dated: November 19, 2013 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in the preparation of the Joint Status Report does not excuse the other parties from their obligation to timely file a status report in accordance with this Order. In the event a party fails to participate as ordered, the party timely submitting the status report shall include a declaration explaining why it was unable to obtain the cooperation of the other party or parties. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?