Bair et al v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 19

ORDER STAYING BRIEFING ON PENDING MOTIONS, Motions terminated: 18 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, 15 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and Notice of Motion; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed by Bayer Essure Inc., Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bayer Corporation, Bayer HealthCare LLC.. Signed by Judge Alsup on 5/1/17. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ) ) ) 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. ) ) ) ) ) ) CASEY BAIR, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01992-WHA Order re: JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING PENDING RULINGS ON MOTION TO REMAND AND MOTION TO DISMISS IN BAIR, 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-01992-WHA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Subject to and without waiving their rights to challenge any aspect of Defendants’ Removal, Plaintiffs Casey Bair, et al., and defendants and specially-appearing defendants Bayer Corporation, Bayer Essure Inc., Bayer HealthCare LLC, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively, “Bayer”), hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on February 28, 2017, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Fresno. In their complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims involving the Essure® Permanent Birth Control System (the “Essure® Device”). 2. On April 5, 2017, the Coordination Trial Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, granted Plaintiffs’ petition for coordination of add-on cases with the Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (“JCCP”) 4887. 3. On April 10, 2017, Bayer filed a Notice of Removal purporting to remove the matter from the Alameda County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Bayer maintains that its removal to the Northern District of California was proper. [Dkt. No. 1]. 4. Bayer filed its Motion to Dismiss on April 17, 2017, on the grounds of federal preemption, among other grounds. [Dkt. No. 16]. The Motion to Dismiss is currently scheduled for hearing on June 8, 2017. 5. Plaintiffs intend to file a Motion to Remand. 6. On April 13, 2017, this matter was deemed related to another matter pending before this Court involving the Essure® Device, captioned as Elizabeth Ann Sangimino, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01488-WHA. [Dkt. No. 12]. 7. In the Sangimino matter, the Court has already set a briefing schedule on Bayer’s Motion to Dismiss, which is similar to the Motion to Dismiss filed in this matter, and on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, which will have some similarities to the Motion to Remand to be filed in this matter. The briefing schedule on those motions in Sangimino is as follows: • April 28, 2017: Bayer’s deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand; Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to Bayer’s Motion to Dismiss; 28 Order re: 1 JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING CASE NO. 3:17-cv-01987-WHA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 • 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; • June 8, 2017: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Remand. 8. In light of the close overlap between the issues being briefed in Sangimino and some of those that will be presented to the Court in this matter, the parties have met and conferred and agree that it would be in the interest of judicial economy to stay the briefing in this matter pending the Court’s rulings on the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Remand in Sangimino. The Parties thus respectfully request and ask the Court to enter an order in this matter staying all briefing on Bayer’s Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand until such time. 10 11 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 12 Dated: April 25, 2017 By: /s/ Kyle G. Bates Kyle G. Bates SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS 13 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Casey Bair, et al. 15 16 Dated: April 25, 2017 17 By: /s/ Alycia A. Degen Alycia A. Degen Bradley J. Dugan SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 18 19 Attorneys for Defendants and Specially Appearing Defendants Bayer Corporation, Bayer HealthCare LLC, Bayer Essure Inc., and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. 20 21 22 23 Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), regarding signatures, Alycia A. Degen hereby 24 attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from counsel for Plaintiffs. 25 Dated: April 25, 2017 By: /s/ Alycia A. Degen Alycia A. Degen 26 27 28 Order re: 2 JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING CASE NO. 3:17-cv-01987-WHA 1 2 3 4 5 6 [PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION, and for good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED THAT the deadlines related to Bayer’s Motion to Dismiss and for Plaintiffs to file their anticipated Motion to Remand are STAYED and continued pending the Court’s rulings on the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Remand in the related case Sangimino v. Bayer Corp., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01488-WHA. 7 8 9 28 Dated: April ____, 2017 ___________________________________ Honorable William H. Alsup 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 3:17-cv-01992-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?