Gergelova et al v. Airbus S.A.S.

Filing 108

ORDER by Judge Illston withdrawing 72 Motion to Dismiss; withdrawing 76 Motion to Dismiss; withdrawing 81 Motion for Joinder; withdrawing 101 Motion to Dismiss (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CROWELL & MORING LLP Douglas W. Sullivan (SBN 088136) [e-mail] Joel D. Smith (SBN 244902) [e-mail] 275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] CROWELL & MORING LLP Scott L. Winkelman (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] Lisa J. Savitt (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] April N. Ross (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY BOWLES & VERNA LLP Michael P. Verna (SBN 84070) [e-mail] 2121 N. California Boulevard, Suite 875 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: (925) 935-09371 Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MARGITA GERGELOVA and VIKTOR GERGEL, individually, as successors-in-interest to ARNOLD GERGEL, deceased, and as co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of ARNOLD GERGEL; ALIA FAROUKH, individually, as legal guardian for KARIM WARDE KHALIFEH and MOHAMAD ALI KHALIFEH, as successorin-interest to HUSSEIN MOUNIR KHALIFEH, deceased and as Personal Representative of the Estate of HUSSEIN MOUNIR KHALIFEH; CAMILLE LACOME, individually, as legal guardian for ZOURI SALEMKOUR LACOME, as

CASE NO. 09-CV-05020-SI [Assigned to Hon. Susan Y. Illston] STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STAY OF PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STAY OF PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CASE NO. 09-CV-05020-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

successor-in-interest to SAMIR SALEMKOUR, deceased and as Personal Representative of the Estate of SALEMKOUR LACOME; MATTHIEU ARRONDO, individually, as successor-in-interest to CATHERINE ARRONDO TAKVORIA, deceased, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of CATHERINE ARRONDO TAKVORIA; CHANTAL KOEHLER, individually, as successor-in-interest to AUDREY QUESADA, deceased, SANA ZERELLI, deceased, and JASSIM ZERELLI, deceased, and as Personal Representative of the Estates of AUDREY QUESADA, SANA ZERELLI, AND JASSIM ZERELLI; and GUY WARRIOR, individually, as successor-in-interest to NEIL WARRIOR, deceased, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of NEIL WARRIOR, Plaintiffs, vs. AIRBUS S.A.S.; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL; THALES GROUP; THALES U.S.A., INC.; MOTOROLA, INC.; INTEL CO.; ROCKWELL COLLINS CO.; HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORP.; GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.; GE AVIATION SYSTEMS, LLC; ROSEMOUNT AEROSPACE INC..; DUPONT CO.; and RAYCHEM CO., Defendants.____

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1. 24 Litigation (the "Panel") a Joint Motion for Coordinated or Consolidated Pre-Trial Proceedings 25 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (the "Motion"), seeking to consolidate this case with two other 26 actions also arising from the crash of Air France Flight 447, and the Panel has scheduled a 27 28 -2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STAY OF PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CASE NO. 09-CV-05020-SI

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Defendants Motorola, Inc., E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and Raychem Corporation (collectively, "Moving Defendants") and all Plaintiffs, by and through their respective counsel of record, HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, all defendants have filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

1 2 3

hearing on the Motion for March 25, 2010. A true and correct copy of the Panel's hearing order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. WHEREAS, Moving Defendants also have filed motions to dismiss Plaintiffs'

4 complaint, and this Court has scheduled a hearing on those motions for March 12, 2010 (Dkt. 87). 5 6 7 8 9 4. 10 is supported by case law. See, e.g., Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360-61 (C.D. 11 Cal. 1997) (holding that stay was warranted, pending resolution by the Panel of a motion to 12 transfer and consolidate, because such a stay would conserve judicial resources and would not 13 prejudice the parties); Palmer v. Am. Honda Motor Co., No. CV 07-1904-PHX-DGC, 2008 WL 14 54914, at *1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 3, 2008) (same). 15 16 17 18 This Court may order that the hearings on Moving Defendants' motions to dismiss are 19 continued and taken off calendar until after the Panel's ruling on the Motion to the Panel, with 20 new hearings to be rescheduled thereafter at the request of the Moving Defendants (if appropriate 21 in light of the Panel's ruling) on a date and time convenient for this Court. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STAY OF PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CASE NO. 09-CV-05020-SI

3.

WHEREAS, Moving Defendants and Plaintiffs seek to conserve judicial resources

and will not suffer prejudice from delaying a ruling on Moving Defendants' motions to dismiss until the Panel resolves Defendants' Motion. WHEREAS, a stay pending the Panel's resolution of Moving Defendants' Motion

NOW, THEREFORE, MOVING DEFENDANTS AND PLAINTIFFS HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:

IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: March 9, 2010 BOWLES & VERNA LLP By: /s/ Michael P. Verna Michael P. Verna Attorneys for Plaintiffs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Dated: March 9, 2010

SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP By: /s/ Leo J. Murphy Attorneys for Defendant MOTOROLA, INC.

Dated: March 9, 2010

CROWELL & MORING LLP By: /s/ Lisa J. Savitt Attorneys for Defendant E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY

Dated: March 9, 2010

MENDES & MOUNT LLP By: /s/ Jason L. Vincent Attorneys for Defendant RAYCHEM CORPORATION

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STAY OF PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CASE NO. 09-CV-05020-SI

Pursuant to General Order 45 Section X.B, each of the above signatories concurs in the filing of this document.

1 2

[PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

3 4

withdrawn The hearings on Moving Defendants' motions to dismiss are continued and taken off calendar until after the Panel's ruling on the Motion to the Panel, with new hearings to be

5 rescheduled thereafter at the request of the Defendants (if appropriate in light of the Panel's 6 ruling) on a date and time convenient for this Court. 7 DATED: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STAY OF PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS CASE NO. 09-CV-05020-SI
024941\0000533\10725698.1

, 2010

__________________________________ Honorable Susan Y. Illston United States District Court Judge