Zamora et al v. Bayer Corp. et al

Filing 19

STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 4/26/2017 CONTINUING the Motion Hearing on 13 Motion to Remand, 14 Motion to Stay to 5/30/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb; RESETTING all interim briefing deadlines accordingly. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Alycia A. Degen, SBN 211350
[e-mail]
Bradley J. Dugan, SBN 271870
[e-mail]
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, California 90013
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants and Specially
Appearing Defendants Bayer Corporation,
Bayer Essure Inc., Bayer HealthCare LLC,
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

MARGIE ZAMORA, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BAYER CORP.; BAYER HEALTHCARE
)
LLC; BAYER ESSURE INC., (F/K/A
)
CONCEPTUS, INC.); BAYER HEALTHCARE )
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and DOES 1-10, )
inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:17-cv-00587-WBS-AC
JOINT STIPULATION TO
CONTINUE HEARING ON
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND
AND MOTION TO STAY

23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARINGS

1

Plaintiffs Margie Zamora, et al., and defendants and specially-appearing defendants Bayer

2

Corporation, Bayer Essure Inc., Bayer HealthCare LLC, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.

3

(collectively, “Bayer”), hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

4

1.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on February 17, 2017, in the Superior Court for the

5

State of California, County of San Joaquin. In their complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims involving the

6

Essure® Permanent Birth Control System (the “Essure® Device”), which is a Class III medical

7

device approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) pursuant to the Pre-

8

Market Approval Application (“PMA”) process.

9
10
11
12
13

2.

On March 17, 2017, Bayer removed the matter from the San Joaquin County Superior

Court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. [Dkt. No. 1].
3.

Bayer filed its Motion to Dismiss on March 24, 2017. [Dkt. No. 10]. The Motion to

Dismiss is currently scheduled for hearing on June 26, 2017.
4.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand and a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending

14

Ruling on the Motion to Remand on March 30, 2017. [Dkt. Nos. 13 & 14]. Both motions are

15

scheduled for hearing on May 15, 2017.

16

5.

Counsel for Bayer has a conflict with the May 15, 2017 hearing date.

17

6.

Accordingly, the parties have agreed and jointly request the Court to order that the

18

hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand and Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Ruling on the

19

Motion to Remand be reset for May 30, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., and that all interim briefing deadlines be

20

reset accordingly.

21

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

22

Dated: April 26, 2017

23

By: /s/ Jaime E. Moss (as authorized on 4/24/17)
Jaime E. Moss
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Margie Zamora, et al.

24
25
26
27
28

LENZE MOSS, PLC

Dated: April 26, 2017

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
By: /s/ Alycia A. Degen
Alycia A. Degen
Attorneys for Defendants and Specially
Appearing Defendants
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER

Bayer Corporation, Bayer HealthCare LLC,
Bayer Essure Inc., and Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc.

1
2
3
4
5

ORDER

6

PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION, and for good cause shown, IT IS

7

ORDERED THAT the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand and Motion to Stay are continued

8

from May 15, 2017 to May 30, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., and that all interim briefing deadlines are reset

9

accordingly.

10

Dated: April 26, 2017

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER