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)
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?