Scott v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 25

STIPULATION AND ORDER ON BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO REMAND by Hon. William Alsup granting 23 Stipulation.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Alycia A. Degen (SBN 211350)
[e-mail]
Bradley Dugan (SBN 271870)
[e-mail]
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, California 90013
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
BAYER CORPORATION,
BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC,
BAYER ESSURE, INC., and BAYER
HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

NORMA SCOTT,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BAYER CORP., an Indiana corporation;
)
BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, a Delaware
)
company; BAYER ESSURE INC. (F/K/A
)
CONCEPTUS, INC.), a Delaware corporation; )
BAYER HEALTHCARE
)
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. a Delaware
)
corporation; and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No. 16-cv-3369-WHA
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER ON BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR
MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO
REMAND

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO
DISMISS AND MOTION TO REMAND; CASE NO. 16-cv-03369

1

Plaintiff Norma Scott and defendants Bayer Corporation, Bayer HealthCare LLC, Bayer

2

Essure Inc., and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively, “Bayer”) hereby stipulate and

3

agree as follows:

4

1.

Plaintiff filed her complaint on May 16, 2016, in the Superior Court for the State of

5

California, County of Alameda, asserting claims involving the Essure® Permanent Birth Control

6

System (the “Essure Device”).

7

2.

Bayer removed this action to federal court on June 16, 2016. [Dkt. No. 1].

8

3.

Bayer filed its Motion to Dismiss on June 23, 2016. [Dkt. No. 14]. Pursuant to the

9
10

Local Rules, Plaintiff’s opposition is due on July 7, and Bayer’s reply is due on July 14. [Id.].
4.

Thereafter, the matter was reassigned to the Honorable William. H. Alsup. [Dkt. No.

11

22]. Pursuant to the Related Case Order entered on June 30, 2016, the Court instructed Bayer, as the

12

moving party on the Motion to Dismiss, to re-notice its Motion to Dismiss. [Id.].

13
14
15

5.

This case is related to Aigner, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al., No. 3:16-cv-03437-

WHA, and Bayer has filed a similar Motion to Dismiss in that case.
6.

The parties have met and conferred on a briefing schedule that will permit a

16

coordinated hearing on the motions to dismiss in Scott and Aigner. In addition, Plaintiffs in this case

17

and in Aigner have indicated that they will be filing Motion to Remands the actions to the Superior

18

Court for the State of California, s.

19

7.

In the interests of efficiency and to permit coordination of briefing and hearing of the

20

issues among the related cases, the parties agree to and request the Court to order the following

21

briefing schedule for Bayer’s Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s anticipated Motion to Remand,

22

which is the first time the parties have requested this type of relief and which will not otherwise

23

affect the schedule in this case:

24

•

July 22, 2016 – Plaintiff’s deadline to file Motion to Remand

25

•

August 8, 2016 – Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to Motion to Dismiss

26

•

August 12, 2016 – Bayer’s deadline to respond to Motion to Dismiss

27

•

August 22, 2016 – Bayer’s deadline to file reply in support of Motion to Dismiss

28

•

August 24, 2016 – Plaintiff’s deadline to file reply in support of Motion to Remand

1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO
DISMISS AND MOTION TO REMAND; CASE NO. 16-cv-03369

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

2

Dated: July 6, 2016
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

3
By: /s/ Alycia A. Degen
Alycia A. Degen
Attorneys for Defendants
BAYER CORPORATION,
BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC,
BAYER ESSURE, INC., and BAYER
HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Dated: July 6, 2016
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
By: /s/ M. Elizabeth Graham
M. Elizabeth Graham
Attorneys for Plaintiff
NORMA SCOTT

13
Filer’s Attestation:
14
Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), regarding signatures, Alycia A. Degen hereby attests that
15
concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from M. Elizabeth Graham.
16
17
18

By: /s/ Alycia A. Degen
Alycia A. Degen

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO
DISMISS AND MOTION TO REMAND; CASE NO. 16-cv-03369

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2
3

PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES STIPULATION, and for good cause shown, IT IS
ORDERED THAT:

4

a.

Plaintiff shall file her motion to remand on or before July 22, 2016.

5

b.

Plaintiff’s opposition to Bayer’s Motion to Dismiss is due August 8, 2016.

6

c.

Bayer’s opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is due August 12, 2016.

7

d.

Bayer’s reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss is due August 22, 2015

8

e.

Plaintiff’s reply in support of her Motion to Remand is due August 24, 2016.

9
10

8
Dated: July __, 2016

___________________________________
Honorable William Alsup

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
215822957

3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO
DISMISS AND MOTION TO REMAND; CASE NO. 16-cv-03369