County of San Joaquin, et al. v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. et al.

Filing 28

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 9/13/17, ORDERING that McKesson Corporation will not be required to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this Court. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
5 Clara J. Shin (Bar No. 214809) Jun Li (Bar No. 315907) COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One Front Street San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091 cshin@cov.com junli@cov.com 6 Attorneys for Defendant McKesson Corporation 7 11 Francis O. Scarpulla (Bar No. 41059) Patrick B. Clayton (Bar No. 240191) LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA 456 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 788-7210 Facsimile: (415) 788-0706 fos@scarpullalaw.com pbc@scarpullalaw.com 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 [Additional Counsel Appear on Signature Page] 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, CITY OF STOCKTON, and MONTEZUMA FIRE 17 PROTECTION DISTRICT, Plaintiffs, 18 v. 19 PURDUE PHARMA L.P., PURDUE 20 PHARMA INC., THE PURDUE TEVA FREDERICK COMPANY, INC., PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., 21 CEPHALON, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JANSSEN 22 PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ORTHO MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. N/K/A 23 JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. N/K/A 24 JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., ENDO 25 PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; McKESSON CORPORATION; and DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, 26 Defendants. 27 Case No.: 2:17−CV−01485−MCE−GGH STIPULATION FOR DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION NOT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL COURT; ORDER Current Response Date: September 22, 2017 28 2:17−CV−01485−MCE−GGH STIPULATION FOR DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION NOT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL COURT 1 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 143, Plaintiffs County of San Joaquin, City of Stockton, 2 and Montezuma Fire Protection District (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant McKesson 3 Corporation (“McKesson”), by and through their respective counsel, subject to approval of this 4 Court, hereby stipulate and agree that because McKesson will not remain a party to this federal 5 court action once the Court rules on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Dkt. 21), and as it serves 6 the interests of judicial economy and efficiency if McKesson is not required to respond to the 7 Complaint in this Court, the Parties request the Court’s approval to relieve McKesson from the 8 requirement from responding to the Complaint in this Court: 9 10 11 WHEREAS, on May 25, 2017, Plaintiffs commenced this suit in San Joaquin County Superior Court; WHEREAS, on July 17, 2017, all defendants except for McKesson (the “Removing 12 Defendants”) removed this action to federal court on the grounds that McKesson is a 13 dispensable party, is fraudulently joined, and is fraudulently misjoined; 14 15 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand on August 16, 2017, alleging that McKesson is a properly-joined defendant and cannot be severed from this action; 16 WHEREAS, the hearing on the Motion to Remand is currently set for October 19, 2017; 17 WHEREAS, if the Court rules in favor of the Removing Defendants and denies 18 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, McKesson will be severed or dismissed from this action; 19 WHEREAS, if the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, and finds that McKesson 20 is a properly-joined defendant, there will be no diversity jurisdiction, the case will be remanded 21 to state court, and McKesson, along with all other defendants, will no longer be litigating before 22 this Court; 23 WHEREAS, the parties stipulate and agree that under either outcome—removal to 24 federal court or a remand back to state court—McKesson will not remain a party to this federal 25 action and should not be required to respond to the Complaint in this Court; 26 27 WHEREAS, McKesson’s current deadline in this Court to respond to the Complaint is September 22, 2017; 28 2:17−CV−01485−MCE−GGH STIPULATION FOR DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION NOT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL COURT 2 1 WHEREAS, without the requested relief, McKesson will be required to answer or file a 2 Rule 12(b)(6) motion in this Court at that time, as well as a duplicative answer or demurrer in 3 state court after the Court decides Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand; 4 5 WHEREAS, the requested relief will conserve judicial resources and promote judicial efficiency; and 6 WHEREAS, Civil Local Rule 143 requires the Court’s approval for all stipulations; 7 NOW THEREFORE, subject to approval by the Court, the Parties hereby stipulate that 8 McKesson shall be relieved of any requirement that it answer or otherwise respond to the 9 Complaint in this Court. 10 IT IS SO STIPULATED: 11 12 DATED: September 7, 2017 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP CLARA J. SHIN JUN LI 13 14 By: 15 16 Attorneys for Defendant McKesson Corporation 17 18 /s/Clara J. Shin Clara J. Shin DATED: September 7, 2017 LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA 19 By: 20 21 /s/Francis O. Scarpulla Francis O. Scarpulla Attorneys for Plaintiffs 22 Additional Counsel: 23 William H. Parish (Bar No. 95913) PARISH GUY CASTILLO, PC 1919 Grand Canal Boulevard, Suite A-5 Stockton, California 95207-8114 Telephone: (209) 952-1992 Facsimile: (209) 952-0250 Email: parish@parishlegal.com 24 25 26 27 28 2:17−CV−01485−MCE−GGH STIPULATION FOR DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION NOT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL COURT 3 J. Mark Myles, County Counsel San Joaquin County 44 North San Joaquin Street Sixth Floor, Suite 679 Stockton, California 95202 Telephone: (209) 468-2980 Facsimile: (209) 468-0315 Email: jmyles@sjgov.org 1 2 3 4 5 6 Counsel for San Joaquin County 7 10 John M. Luebberke, City Attorney City of Stockton 425 North El Dorado Street, Second Floor Stockton, California 95202 Telephone: (209) 937-8333 Facsimile: (209) 937-8898 11 Counsel for City of Stockton 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2:17−CV−01485−MCE−GGH STIPULATION FOR DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION NOT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL COURT 4 1 ORDER 2 The Court has reviewed and considered the Stipulation submitted by Plaintiffs and 3 Defendant McKesson Corporation in the above-captioned action. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 4 ORDERED that McKesson Corporation will not be required to answer or otherwise respond to 5 the Complaint in this Court. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 Dated: September 13, 2017 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2:17−CV−01485−MCE−GGH STIPULATION FOR DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION NOT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL COURT 5

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?