Adamczyk et al v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 23

ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING by Hon. William Alsup granting 22 Stipulation.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Alycia A. Degen, SBN 211350
[e-mail]
Bradley J. 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 and Specially
Appearing Defendants Bayer Corporation,
Bayer Essure Inc., Bayer HealthCare LLC,
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

SELENE ADAMCZYK, et al.,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
BAYER CORP.; BAYER HEALTHCARE
)
)
LLC; BAYER ESSURE INC., (F/K/A
CONCEPTUS, INC.); BAYER HEALTHCARE )
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and DOES 1-10, )
inclusive,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:17-cv-01846-WHA
Order re:
JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY
BRIEFING PENDING RULINGS ON
MOTION TO REMAND AND
MOTION TO DISMISS IN
SANGIMINO, et al. v. BAYER CORP.,
et al.

23
24
25
26
27
28
Order re:
JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING; CASE NO. 3:17-cv-01846-WHA

1

Plaintiffs Selene Adamczyk, et al., and defendants and specially-appearing defendants Bayer

2

Corporation, Bayer Essure Inc., Bayer HealthCare LLC, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.

3

(collectively, “Bayer”), hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

4

1.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on February 28, 2017, in the Superior Court for the

5

State of California, County of Alameda. In their complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims involving the

6

Essure® Permanent Birth Control System (the “Essure® Device”).

7
8
9

2.

On April 3, 2017, Bayer removed the matter from the Alameda County Superior

Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. [Dkt. No. 1].
3.

Bayer filed its Motion to Dismiss on April 10, 2017, on the grounds of federal

10

preemption, among other grounds. [Dkt. No. 17]. The Motion to Dismiss is currently scheduled for

11

hearing on June 8, 2017.

12

4.

On April 19, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand this action to the Superior

13

Court of Alameda County, State of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447, on the grounds that this

14

Court lacks jurisdiction over this action. [Dkt. No. 21].

15

5.

On April 7, 2017, this matter was deemed related to another matter pending before

16

this Court involving the Essure® Device, captioned as Elizabeth Ann Sangimino, et al. v. Bayer

17

Corp., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01488-WHA. [Dkt. No. 14].

18

6.

In the Sangimino matter, the Court has already set a briefing schedule on Bayer’s

19

Motion to Dismiss, which is similar to the Motion to Dismiss filed in this matter, and on Plaintiffs’

20

Motion to Remand, which is similar to the Motion to Remand filed in this matter. The briefing

21

schedule on those motions in Sangimino is as follows:

22

•

Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to Bayer’s Motion to Dismiss;

23
24

April 28, 2017: Bayer’s deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand;

•

May 12, 2017: Bayer’s deadline to file a reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss;
Plaintiffs’ deadline to file a reply in support of the Motion to Remand;

25
26

•

June 8, 2017: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Remand.

27

7.

In light of the close overlap between the issues being briefed in Sangimino and those

28

that will be presented to the Court in this matter, the parties have met and conferred and agree that it
Order re:
1
JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING; CASE NO. 3:17-cv-01846-WHA

1

would be in the interest of judicial economy to stay the briefing in this matter pending the Court’s

2

rulings on the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Remand in Sangimino. The Parties thus respectfully

3

request and ask the Court to enter an order in this matter staying all briefing on Bayer’s Motion to

4

Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand until such time.

5
6

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

7

Dated: April 19, 2017

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

8
By: /s/ Alycia A. Degen
Alycia A. Degen
Bradley J. Dugan

9
10

Attorneys for Defendants and Specially
Appearing Defendants
Bayer Corporation, Bayer HealthCare LLC,
Bayer Essure Inc., and Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc.

11
12
13
14

Dated: April 19, 2017

GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
By: /s/ M. Elizabeth Graham
M. Elizabeth Graham

15
16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Selene Adamczyk, et al.

17
18

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), regarding signatures, Alycia A. Degen hereby

19

attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from counsel for Plaintiffs.

20

Dated: April 19, 2017
By: /s/ Alycia A. Degen
Alycia A. Degen

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order re:

2
JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING; CASE NO. 3:17-cv-01846-WHA

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION, and for good cause shown, IT IS

3

ORDERED THAT the briefing on Bayer’s Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand are

4

STAYED pending the Court’s rulings on the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Remand in the

5

related case Sangimino v. Bayer Corp., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01488-WHA.

6
7

20
Dated: April __, 2017

___________________________________
Honorable William H. Alsup

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
221132919

1
[PROPOSED] ORDER - CASE NO. 3:17-cv-01846-WHA