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)

Download PDF
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?