Barnes et al v. McKesson Corporation et al

Filing 18

ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting 16 Stipulation Extending Time for Defendants To Answer Complaint (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2013)

REED SMITH LLP

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

1 Michael K. Brown (SBN 104252)
Email:
[e-mail]
2 Reed Smith LLP
355 South Grand Avenue
3 Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
5
Sonja S. Weissman (SBN 154320)
[e-mail]
6 Email:
Steven J. Boranian (SBN 174183)
7 Email: [e-mail]
Reed Smith LLP
8 101 Second Street
Suite 1800
9 San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
Telephone: [phone]
10 Facsimile: [phone]
11 Attorneys for Defendants
GlaxoSmithKline LLC (formerly known as
12 SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a
GlaxoSmithKline) and McKesson Corporation
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 3:13-cv-03047-SI
16 RENETTA BARNES, Individually and as
Successor-in-interest on behalf of the Estate of
17 CLARA BURRELL-HARVELL, Deceased, et al.,
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
Plaintiffs,
18
ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER
vs.
19
COMPLAINT
20 McKESSON CORPORATION, a corporation,
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION
Honorable Susan Illston
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE, and DOES
21
ELEVEN through FIFTY, Inclusive,
22
Defendants,
23
vs.
24
DOES FIFTY-ONE through ONE HUNDRED,
25 Inclusive,
26

Nominal Defendants for
Wrongful Death Actions

27
28
Case No. 3:13-cv-03047-SI
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER
COMPLAINT

1

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

2

Plaintiffs in this action, Defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC, (f/k/a SmithKline Beecham

3 Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline) (“GSK”) and Defendant McKesson Corporation
4 (“McKesson”), hereby submit, through their undersigned counsel of record, the following
5 Stipulation and accompanying [Proposed] Order.
6

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c)(2), Defendants GSK, and

7 McKesson (collectively, “Defendants”) have not yet answered the Plaintiffs’ Complaint prior to
8 removal of this case from San Francisco Superior Court on July 2, 2013. Defendants have 21 days
9 after “receiving--through service or otherwise--a copy of the initial pleading stating the claim for

REED SMITH LLP

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

10 relief” and therefore have 21 days to Answer Plaintiffs’ Complaint. McKesson has not been served
11 with Plaintiffs’ Complaint. GSK has also not been served with Plaintiffs’ Complaint. GSK filed a
12 Motion to Stay on July 10, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand on July 12, 2013. (See
13 Declaration of Steven J. Boranian (“Boranian Decl.”) in Support of Joint Stipulation Extending
14 Defendants’ time to Answer Complaint ¶ 7)
15

WHEREAS, the parties, having met and conferred, pursuant to Civil L.R 6-3, jointly

16 stipulate to and respectfully request that this Court extend the time for Defendants to Answer the
17 Complaint until 30 days after entry of an order on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. (See Boranian
18 Decl. ¶ 8)
19

WHEREAS, the parties agree that good cause exists for the requested extension of time in

20 order to serve the interests of judicial economy, efficiency, and fairness. This action will either be
21 remanded to the Superior Court of San Francisco or transferred to the Avandia MDL. Therefore, in
22 order to conserve the resources of the Court and the parties, all parties agree that Defendants’
23 Answers should ultimately be filed should ultimately be filed in the San Francisco Superior Court or
24 in the Avandia MDL. (See Boranian Decl. ¶ 9)
25

WHEREAS, no party to this case has previously requested any time modifications in this

26 action. (See Boranian Decl. ¶ 10)
27

By the filing of this Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order, the Plaintiffs do not concede, and

28 Case No. 3:13-cv-03047-SI

-1 -

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER
COMPLAINT

1 Defendant will not argue, that the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over this action
2 because of the submission of this Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order.
WHEREAS, the requested relief would not cause any undue hardship, delay, or prejudice to

3

4 either party or the Court and is warranted by the circumstances in this case. (See Boranian Decl. ¶
5 11)
6 DATED: July 17, 2013
REED SMITH LLP
Michael K. Brown
Sonja S. Weissman
Steven J. Boranian

7
8
9

REED SMITH LLP

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

10

By: /s/ Steven J. Boranian
Steven J. Boranian
Attorneys for Defendants
GlaxoSmithKline LLC (formerly known as
SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a
GlaxoSmithKline) and McKesson Corporation

11
12
13
14
15
16

DATED: July 17, 2013
LAW OFFICES OF SIN-TING MARY LIU
Sin-Ting Mary Liu

17
18

By: /s/ Sin-Ting Mary Liu
Sin-Ting Mary Liu
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Case No. 3:13-cv-03047-SI

-2 -

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER
COMPLAINT

FILER’S ATTESTATION

1
2
3

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the undersigned attests that all signatories have concurred in

4 the filing of this Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Extending Time for Defendants to Answer
5 Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
6 DATED: July 17, 2013
REED SMITH LLP
Michael K. Brown
Sonja S. Weissman
Steven J. Boranian

7
8
9

REED SMITH LLP

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

10

By:

11
12

/s/ Steven J. Boranian
Steven J. Boranian
Attorneys for Defendants
GlaxoSmithKline LLC (formerly known as
SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a
GlaxoSmithKline) and McKesson Corporation

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Case No. 3:13-cv-03047-SI

-3 -

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER
COMPLAINT

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

3
4

7/19/13
DATED: __________

5
6
7

Honorable Susan Illston

8
9

REED SMITH LLP

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Case No. 3:13-cv-03047-SI

-4 -

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER
COMPLAINT

REED SMITH LLP

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

1 Michael K. Brown (SBN 104252)
Email:
[e-mail]
2 Reed Smith LLP
355 South Grand Avenue
3 Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
5
Sonja S. Weissman (SBN 154320)
[e-mail]
6 Email:
Steven J. Boranian (SBN 174183)
7 Email: [e-mail]
Reed Smith LLP
8 101 Second Street
Suite 1800
9 San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
Telephone: [phone]
10 Facsimile: [phone]
11 Attorneys for Defendants
GlaxoSmithKline LLC (formerly known as
12 SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a
GlaxoSmithKline) and McKesson Corporation
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 3:13-cv-03047-SI
16 RENETTA BARNES, Individually and as
Successor-in-interest on behalf of the Estate of
17 CLARA BURRELL-HARVELL, Deceased, et al.,
DECLARATION OF STEVEN J.
Plaintiffs,
18
BORANIAN IN SUPPORT OF JOINT
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
vs.
19
ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER
20 McKESSON CORPORATION, a corporation,
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION
COMPLAINT
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE, and DOES
21
ELEVEN through FIFTY, Inclusive,
Honorable Susan Illston
22
Defendants,
23
vs.
24
DOES FIFTY-ONE through ONE HUNDRED,
25 Inclusive,
26

Nominal Defendants for
Wrongful Death Action.

27
28
Case No. 3:13-cv-03047-SI
DECLARATION OF STEVEN J. BORANIAN IN SUPPORT OF JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER COMPLAINT

1

I, Steven J. Boranian, declare:

2

1.

I am an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of California and a partner

3 at Reed Smith LLP, counsel for defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC (“GSK”) and McKesson
4 Corporation (“McKesson”). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and
5 for those matters for which I do not have personal knowledge, I am informed and believe they are
6 true. I could and would testify to these matters if called as a witness.
7

2.

A Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) has been established in the Eastern District of

8 Pennsylvania entitled In re Avandia® Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation
9 (MDL-1871), to coordinate all product liability cases involving alleged health risks from Avandia®

REED SMITH LLP

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

10 (the “Avandia® cases”).
11

3.

The Avandia MDL is composed entirely of cases, like the instant case, seeking

12 damages for injuries allegedly caused by Avandia.
13

4.

Over 7,800 cases have been filed in or already transferred to the MDL.

14

5.

Pursuant to Rule 7.5(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on

15 Multidistrict Litigation (“R.P.J.P.M.D.L.”), GSK provided notice to the JPML of the pendency of
16 this “tag-along” action on July 3, 2013.
17

6.

On July 9, 2013, the JPML issued Conditional Transfer Order (“CTO”), CTO 172,

18 conditionally transferring this case to the Avandia MDL.
19

7.

Prior to GSK’s removal of this action on July 2, 2013, GSK had not been served with

20 the Complaint. Defendant McKesson has also not been served with the Complaint. GSK and
21 McKesson (collectively, “Defendants”) have not yet answered the Complaint. GSK filed a Motion
22 to Stay on July 10, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand on July 12, 2013.
23

8.

All parties, having met and conferred, pursuant to Civil L.R 6-3, jointly stipulate to

24 and respectfully request that this Court extend the time for Defendants to Answer the Complaint
25 until 30 days after entry of an order on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand.
26

9.

The parties agree that good cause exists for the requested extension of time in order to

27 serve the interests of judicial economy, efficiency, and fairness. The JPML has already issued a
28 CTO in this matter, which has been timely opposed by Plaintiffs. Therefore this action will either be
Case No. 3:13-cv-03047-SI
-1 DECLARATION OF STEVEN J. BORANIAN IN SUPPORT OF JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER COMPLAINT

1 remanded to the Superior Court of San Francisco or transferred to the Avandia MDL. Therefore, in
2 order to conserve the resources of the Court and the parties, all parties agree that the Defendants’
3 Answers should ultimately be filed in the San Francisco Superior Court or the Avandia MDL.
4

10.

No party to this case has previously requested any time modifications in this action.

5

11.

Therefore, because this action is unlikely to remain before this Court, the requested

6 relief would not cause any undue hardship, delay, or prejudice to either party or the Court and is
7 warranted by the circumstances in this case.
8
9

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is

REED SMITH LLP

A limited liability partnership formed in the State of Delaware

10 true and correct.
11
12

DATED: July 17, 2013
/s/ Steven J. Boranian
Steven J. Boranian

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:13-cv-03047-SI
-2 DECLARATION OF STEVEN J. BORANIAN IN SUPPORT OF JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER COMPLAINT