Uppal v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. et al

Filing 13

Order by Hon. Vince Chhabria granting 12 Stipulation Staying the Hearing and Related Deadlines re Motion to Remand.(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

TIMOTHY J. LONG, SBN 137591
MICHAEL D. WEIL, SBN 209056
KIMPO NGOI, SBN 283383
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
CVS PHARMACY, INC., CVS RX SERVICES, INC.,
and GARFIELD BEACH CVS, LLC

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

RIMANPREET UPPAL, an Individual,
Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and the general public,,

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Rhode Island
corporation; CVS RX SERVICES, INC., a
New York corporation; GARFIELD BEACH
CVS, LLC, a California limited liability
company; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive,

18

Case No. 3:14-cv-02629-VC
Hon. Vince Chhabria
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO STAY PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND AND
DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND
PENDING NINTH CIRCUIT REVIEW
OF DEFENDANTS’ PETITION FOR
PERMISSION TO APPEAL

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND
PENDING NINTH CIRCUIT REVIEW OF DEFENDANTS’ PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02629-VC
OHSUSA:758576935.1

1

STIPULATION

2

WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiff Rimanpreet Uppal also represents the named plaintiffs

3

in four other separate, but related class action cases: Sharobiem v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No.

4

CV 13-9426-GHK; Bystrom v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. CV 13-09424-GHK; Paksy v. CVS

5

Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. CV 13-09425-GHK; and Connell v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. CV 13-

6

09410-GHK.

7

WHEREAS, the class complaints in the Connell, Sharobiem, Bystrom, and Paksy actions

8

raised allegations of similar unlawful conduct—including a failure to pay overtime for work

9

performed by pharmacists on the seventh consecutive day of work—by Defendants in each of the

10

regions across California that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. operates. 1

11
12

WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiff originally filed the complaints in the related cases in the
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles between October 2, 2013 and November 6, 2013.

13

WHEREAS, on December 20, 2013, counsel for Defendants removed the Connell,

14

Sharobiem, Bystrom, and Paksy actions under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C.

15

section 1332(d) (“CAFA”), to the United States District Court for the Central District of

16

California.

17
18

WHEREAS, on January 21, 2014, counsel for Plaintiff moved to remand the Connell,
Sharobiem, Bystrom, and Paksy actions to state court.

19

WHEREAS, on March 26, 2014, the Central District of California denied the motion to

20

remand in Sharobiem, which included claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”)

21

but granted the motions in Connell, Bystrom, and Paksy, which did not include claims under

22

PAGA.

23
24
25
26
27

WHEREAS, on March 27, 2014, counsel for Plaintiff filed the present action’s class
1

CVS operates six regions within the State of California. The class action regarding the sixth of
these regions, Meneses v. CVS Pharmacy Inc. et al., Case No. BC 489739 (Los Angeles Superior
Court), has a motion for preliminary approval of settlement pending, with the hearing currently
set for July 17, 2014. Defendants removed Meneses on September 6, 2012, and the action was
remanded to state court on November 5, 2012. See Case No. 2:12-cv-07661-PA (CW) (Docket
No. 18).

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND
PENDING NINTH CIRCUIT REVIEW OF DEFENDANTS’ PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02629-VC
OHSUSA:758576935.1

1

complaint in the Superior Court for the County of Alameda. Plaintiff’s complaint raises

2

allegations of unlawful conduct similar to those in the foregoing related cases, including a failure

3

by Defendants to pay overtime for work performed by pharmacists on the seventh consecutive

4

day of work.

5

WHEREAS, on April 7, 2014, Defendants filed petitions with the United States Court of

6

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting permission to appeal the Central District’s remand orders

7

in Paksy (Case No. 14-80047), Bystrom (Case No. 14-80048), and Connell (Case No. 14-80049).

8

In particular, Defendants contend that those actions satisfied CAFA’s $5 million amount in

9

controversy requirement individually and collectively.

10

WHEREAS, on June 6, 2014, Defendants removed the present action to the United States

11

District Court for the Northern District of California under CAFA, arguing that it may be properly

12

aggregated with the Connell, Bystrom, Paksy, and Sharobiem actions to meet the amount in

13

controversy requirement. As stated in its removal papers, Defendants intend to transfer the

14

present action to the Central District to facilitate coordination with the Sharobiem case.

15
16

WHEREAS, on July 7, 2014, counsel for Plaintiff moved to remand the present action to
state court.

17
18

WHEREAS, Defendants’ deadline to oppose Plaintiff’s motion to remand is presently set
for July 21, 2014.

19

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the Ninth Circuit’s decision regarding Defendants’

20

petition for permission to appeal the Central District’s orders granting remand in Connell,

21

Bystrom, and Paksy will be dispositive with respect to Plaintiff’s motion to remand in the present

22

action.

23
24
25
26
27

WHEREAS, the Parties seek to seek to resolve the issue of this case’s removal efficiently
and without unnecessary expenditure of the Court’s resources.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by the Parties and their respective counsel
of record:
That Plaintiff’s motion to remand and Defendants’ time to oppose Plaintiff’s motion will

28

-3STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND
PENDING NINTH CIRCUIT REVIEW OF DEFENDANTS’ PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02629-VC
OHSUSA:758576935.1

1

be stayed for ninety days after the filing of this stipulation pending the Ninth’s Circuit decision

2

regarding Defendants’ petition for permission to appeal.

3

That should the Ninth Circuit accept Defendants’ petition for permission to appeal the

4

Central District’s orders in Connell, Bystrom, and Paksy, Plaintiff’s motion to remand and

5

Defendants’ time to oppose Plaintiff’s motion will continue to be stayed pending the final

6

outcome of Defendants’ appeal.

7

That should the Ninth Circuit reverse the Central District’s orders in Connell, Bystrom,

8

and Paksy based on Defendants’ aggregation argument, Plaintiff will withdraw his motion to

9

remand and the Parties will stipulate to transfer the present action to the Central District for

10

coordination with the related cases.

11

That should the Ninth Circuit deny Defendants’ petition for permission to appeal or affirm

12

the Central District’s orders in Connell, Bystrom, and Paksy, the Parties will promptly stipulate to

13

remand the present action to state court.

14
15

That in 90 days from the date of this stipulation, the parties shall file a joint status report
with this Court proposing either an additional stay or other methods by which to proceed.

16
17

Dated: July 14, 2014

18

TIMOTHY J. LONG
MICHAEL D. WEIL
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

19
By:

20
21

/s/
MICHAEL D. WEIL
Attorney for Defendants
CVS PHARMACY, INC., CVS RX
SERVICES, INC., and GARFIELD BEACH
CVS, LLC

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND
PENDING NINTH CIRCUIT REVIEW OF DEFENDANTS’ PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02629-VC
OHSUSA:758576935.1

1

Dated: July 14, 2014

2

V. JAMES DESIMONE
MICHAEL D. SEPLOW
SCHONBRUM DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS
& HOFFMAN LLP

3
4

By:

/s/
MICHAEL D. SEPLOW

5

Attorney for Plaintiff
RIMANPREET UPPAL

6
7
8

ATTESTATION
9
I hereby attest that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from
10
Michael Seplow, of Schonbrum DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP, Attorneys for
11
Plaintiff.
12
13

Dated: July 14, 2014

14

TIMOTHY J. LONG
MICHAEL D. WEIL
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

15
By:

16
17

/s/
MICHAEL D. WEIL
Attorney for Defendants
CVS PHARMACY, INC., CVS RX
SERVICES, INC., and GARFIELD BEACH
CVS, LLC

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND
PENDING NINTH CIRCUIT REVIEW OF DEFENDANTS’ PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02629-VC
OHSUSA:758576935.1

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

July 23, 2014
DATE: ________________________

_________________________________
Hon. Vince Chhabria

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

-6STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND
PENDING NINTH CIRCUIT REVIEW OF DEFENDANTS’ PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02629-VC
OHSUSA:758576935.1