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

Filing 33

ORDER re 31 STIPULATION To Continue The Initial Case Management Conference and To Allow Plaintiff To File A Third Amended Complaint. Case Management Conference set for 11/8/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Case Management Statement due by 11/1/2016. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/23/2016. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2016)

Download PDF
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: (310) 312-4000 Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 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: (818) 886-2525 Facsimile: (818) 350-6272 Attorneys for Plaintiff ADRIANA BARBOR 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 ADRIANA BARBOR, 18 19 20 Plaintiff, v. 21 CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE dba BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, 22 Case No. 3:16-cv-01773-WHO Honorable William H. Orrick STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant. Complaint Filed: April 7, 2016 23 24 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 ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO FILE A THIRD 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 ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO FILE A THIRD 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 had 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 filed 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. On July 26, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation before Judge Orrick, agreeing to 20 extend Blue Shield’s time to respond to Plaintiff’s SAC to 30 days following the August 10, 2016 21 hearing on the Homampour motion to dismiss, because the Court’s ruling on that motion would 22 inform Blue Shield’s response to Plaintiff’s SAC. [Barbor Dkt. No. 28.] The parties also agreed 23 that, in the event the Court took the Homampour motion to dismiss under submission on August 24 10, 2016, the parties could file a stipulation seeking a further extension of time for Blue Shield to 25 respond to Plaintiff’s SAC. [Id.] Finally, the parties also agreed to continue the initial case 26 management conference until after Blue Shield’s response deadline, to September 13, 2016. [Id.] 27 The Court entered its Order on the stipulation on July 27, 2016. [Dkt. No. 30.] 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES 13. 2 The Homampour motion to dismiss hearing occurred on August 10, 2016. While STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CMC AND TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 3:16-CV-01773-WHO 1 the motion is still under submission, the Court indicated in its minutes that its Order would grant 2 leave to file an amended complaint two weeks after the scheduled September 19, 2016 mediation. 3 [Homampour Dkt. No. 41.] 14. 4 The parties have agreed that Plaintiff, like the Homampour plaintiffs, will file an 5 amended complaint two weeks after the scheduled September 19, 2016 mediation, by October 3, 6 2016. Blue Shield will have until October 24, 2016 to respond to Plaintiff’s third amended 7 complaint. 8 15. 9 The parties also agree that the initial case management conference should be continued until after Blue Shield’s response deadline. The parties agree to continue the initial case 10 management conference to Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., or a subsequent date 11 convenient to the Court. 16. 12 In the event that Blue Shield files a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s third amended 13 complaint, the parties agree that they will file a stipulation to move the initial case management 14 conference to the date of the hearing on Blue Shield’s motion. IT IS SO STIPULATED. 15 16 17 Dated: August 22, 2016 KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP 18 19 By: /s/ Timothy J. Rozelle Glenn R. Kantor Timothy J. Rozelle Attorneys for Plaintiff ADRIANA BARBOR 20 21 22 23 Dated: August 22, 2016 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 24 25 26 27 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES By: /s/ Leah R. Adams Gregory N. Pimstone John LeBlanc Ileana M. Hernandez Leah R. Adams Attorneys for Defendant CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA 3 BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CMC AND TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 3:16-CV-01773-WHO 1 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 4 Dated: August 23 _____________, 2016 ___ Honorable William H. Orrick United States District Court Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES 4 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CMC AND TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 3:16-CV-01773-WHO

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?