Perez et al v. Bayer Corporation et al
Filing
22
ORDER STAYING BRIEFING Motions terminated: 20 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Stay Briefing Pending Rulings on Motion to Remand and Motion to Dismiss in Sangimino, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. filed by Bayer Essure Inc., Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bayer Corporation, Bayer HealthCare LLC. Signed by Judge Alsup on 4/25/17. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Alycia A. Degen, SBN 211350
adegen@sidley.com
Bradley J. Dugan, SBN 271870
bdugan@sidley.com
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, California 90013
Telephone: +1 213 896-6000
Facsimile: +1 213 896-6600
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
NATACHA PEREZ, 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-01847-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.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order re:
JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING; CASE NO. 3:17-cv-01847-WHA
1
Plaintiffs Natacha Perez, 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 December 23, 2016, in the Superior Court for the
5
State of California, County of Alameda, case number RG16843637. In their complaint, Plaintiffs
6
assert claims involving the Essure® Permanent Birth Control System (the “Essure® Device”), which
7
is a Class III medical device approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)
8
pursuant to the Pre-Market Approval Application (“PMA”) process.
9
10
11
2.
On April 5, 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
12
preemption, among other grounds. [Dkt. No. 15]. The Motion to Dismiss is currently scheduled for
13
hearing on June 8, 2017.
14
4.
On April 20, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand this action to the Superior
15
Court for the State of California, County of Alameda, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447, on the grounds
16
that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this action.
17
5.
On April 7, 2017, this matter was deemed related to another matter pending before
18
this Court involving the Essure® Device, captioned as Elizabeth Ann Sangimino, et al. v. Bayer
19
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01488-WHA. [Dkt. No. 12].
20
6.
In the Sangimino matter, the Court has already set a briefing schedule on Bayer’s
21
Motion to Dismiss, which is similar to the Motion to Dismiss filed in this matter, and on Plaintiffs’
22
Motion to Remand, which is similar to the Motion to Remand filed in this matter. The briefing
23
schedule on those motions in Sangimino is as follows:
24
•
Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to Bayer’s Motion to Dismiss;
25
26
•
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;
27
28
April 28, 2017: Bayer’s deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand;
•
June 8, 2017: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Remand.
Order re:
1
JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING; CASE NO. 3:17-cv-01847-WHA
1
7.
In light of the close overlap between the issues being briefed in Sangimino and those
2
that will be presented to the Court in this matter, the parties have met and conferred and agree that it
3
would be in the interest of judicial economy to stay the briefing in this matter pending the Court’s
4
rulings on the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Remand in Sangimino. The Parties thus respectfully
5
request and ask the Court to enter an order in this matter staying all briefing on Bayer’s Motion to
6
Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand until such time.
7
8
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
9
Dated: April 21, 2017
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
10
By: /s/ Alycia A. Degen
Alycia A. Degen
Bradley J. Dugan
11
12
Attorneys for Defendants and Specially
Appearing Defendants
Bayer Corporation, Bayer HealthCare LLC,
Bayer Essure Inc., and Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc.
13
14
15
16
Dated: April 21, 2017
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
By: /s/ Kristy M. Arevalo
Kristy M. Arevalo
17
18
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Natacha Perez, et al.
19
20
Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), regarding signatures, Alycia A. Degen hereby
21
attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from counsel for Plaintiffs.
22
23
Dated: April 21, 2017
By: /s/ Alycia A. Degen
Alycia A. Degen
24
25
26
27
28
Order re:
2
JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING; CASE NO. 3:17-cv-01847-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
Dated: April 25 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
Order re:
221132891
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER - CASE NO. 3:17-cv-01847-WHA
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?