Adriana Barbor v. Blue Shield of California Life and Health Insurance Company

Filing 30

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA TO RESPOND TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. Case Management Statement due by 9/6/2016. Initial Case Management Conference set for 9/13/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 07/27/2016. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2016)

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

MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
GREGORY N. PIMSTONE (CA Bar No. 150203)
JOHN LEBLANC (CA Bar No. 155842)
ILEANA M. HERNANDEZ (CA Bar No. 198906)
LEAH R. ADAMS (CA Bar No. 266645)
11355 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE dba
BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA
KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
GLENN R. KANTOR (CA Bar No. 122643)
TIMOTHY J. ROZELLE (CA Bar No. 298332)
19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ADRIANA BARBOR

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17

ADRIANA BARBOR,

18
19

Plaintiff,

Honorable William H. Orrick

23

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND TO
EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE
DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA TO
RESPOND TO THE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT

24

Complaint Filed:

20

v.

Case No. 3:16-cv-01773-WHO

21

CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE
dba BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA,

22

Defendant.

April 7, 2016

25
26
27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CMC AND TO EXTEND TIME FOR
DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-01773-WHO

1

Plaintiff Adriana Barbor (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant California Physicians’ Service dba

2

Blue Shield of California (“Blue Shield” or “Defendant”) stipulate, pursuant to Civil Local Rule

3

6-2, as follows:

4

1.

Plaintiff filed this action against Blue Shield Life & Health Insurance Company

5

(“Blue Shield Life”) on April 7, 2016. [Dkt. No. 1.] The case was assigned to the Honorable

6

Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

7

2.

On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). [Dkt. No.

8

13.] On June 3, 2016, Blue Shield Life informed Plaintiff’s counsel of various defects it had

9

identified with the FAC, including, among other things, that Plaintiff had named the wrong entity.

10

At that time, Blue Shield Life stated that it believed that several arguments it had raised in its

11

motion to dismiss portions of the second amended complaint in Homampour, et al. v. Blue Shield

12

of California Life and Health Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 15-cv-05003-WHO, were

13

applicable to the Barbor FAC.

14

3.

On June 9, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation regarding the filing of an amended

15

complaint and continuation of the case management conference initially set for July 19, 2016.

16

[Dkt. No. 15.] On June 10, 2016, the Court entered the parties’ stipulation. [Dkt. No. 16.]

17

Pursuant to the Court’s Order, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was due on June

18

17, 2016, Defendant’s response was due on July 18, 2016, and the initial case management

19

conference was continued to August 16, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.

20

4.

On June 16, 2016, Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel, who are also

21

counsel to the Homampour plaintiffs, and inquired whether they intended to file an

22

Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, pursuant to Civil Local

23

Rule 3-12 (“Administrative Motion”), with respect to the Homampour and Barbor cases.

24

5.

Plaintiff filed her SAC in this action on June 17, 2016. [Dkt. No. 17.] In the SAC,

25

Plaintiff substituted Blue Shield for Blue Shield Life, which had been incorrectly named as the

26

defendant in this case.

27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES

6.

On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed that they would proceed with the

1
Administrative Motion to relate Barbor to Homampour.
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CMC AND TO EXTEND TIME FOR
DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-01773-WHO

1

7.

On July 12, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation to further extend time for Blue

2

Shield to respond to the SAC, due to the possibility that Barbor and Homampour would be

3

related upon filing of the Administrative Motion to relate the cases, and because Blue Shield

4

intended to raise similar arguments in its motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s SAC as it has already

5

raised in the pending motion to dismiss in Homampour. The parties also requested to continue the

6

initial case management conference until after Blue Shield’s response deadline. [Dkt. No. 22.]

7
8
9

8.

On July 12, 2016, the Homampour plaintiffs filed the Administrative Motion.

[Homampour Dkt. No. 32.]
9.

On July 15, 2016, the Court entered an Order extending the deadline for Blue

10

Shield to respond to the SAC until August 12, 2016. The Order further provided that, in the event

11

that Blue Shield files a motion to dismiss the SAC, the Court would vacate the initial case

12

management conference set for August 16, 2016. [Dkt. No. 25.]

13
14
15

10.

On July 18, 2016, Blue Shield filed its response supporting the Administrative

Motion.
11.

On July 21, 2016, Judge Orrick entered an order relating Barbor and Homampour.

16

[Homampour Dkt. No. 36; Barbor Dkt. No. 26.] Barbor was therefore reassigned to Judge

17

Orrick. Judge Orrick re-set the Barbor initial case management conference for August 16, 2016 at

18

2:00 p.m. before Judge Orrick. [Dkt. No. 27.]

19

12.

The Homampour motion to dismiss hearing is scheduled for August 10, 2016.

20

13.

The parties agree that, because Blue Shield intends to raise similar arguments in its

21

motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s SAC as it has already raised in the pending motion to dismiss in the

22

related case, Homampour, Blue Shield’s time to respond to Plaintiff’s SAC should be extended to

23

30 days following the August 10, 2016 hearing on the Homampour motion to dismiss. The parties

24

agree that the Court’s ruling on the Homampour motion to dismiss will inform Blue Shield’s

25

response to Plaintiff’s SAC, and the extension will therefore serve judicial efficiency and avoid

26

needless duplication of resources. Blue Shield’s time to move, answer, or otherwise respond to

27

the SAC is therefore extended to and including September 9, 2016.

28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES

2
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CMC AND TO EXTEND TIME FOR
DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-01773-WHO

1

14.

In the event the Court takes the Homampour motion to dismiss under submission

2

and does not issue a ruling on the motion to dismiss on August 10, 2016, the parties agree that

3

they may file a stipulation seeking a further extension of time for Blue Shield to respond to

4

Plaintiff’s SAC.

5

15.

The parties also agree that the initial case management conference should be

6

continued until after Blue Shield’s response deadline. The parties agree to continue the initial case

7

management conference to Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., or a subsequent date

8

convenient to the Court.

9

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

10
11

Dated: July 26, 2016

KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP

12
13
By: /s/ Timothy J. Rozelle
Glenn R. Kantor
Timothy J. Rozelle
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ADRIANA BARBOR

14
15
16
17

Dated:

July 26, 2016

MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP

18
By: /s/ Leah R. Adams
Gregory N. Pimstone
John LeBlanc
Ileana M. Hernandez
Leah R. Adams
Attorneys for Defendant
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA
BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA

19
20
21
22
23
24

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated:

July 27, 2016

___
Honorable William H. Orrick
United States District Court Judge

27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES

3
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CMC AND TO EXTEND TIME FOR
DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-01773-WHO