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)
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?