Blankenship et al v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 17 STIPULATION to Stay Briefing Pending Rulings on Motion to Remand and Motion to Dismiss in Sangimino, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/04/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2017)

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

LEANNA BLANKENSHIP, 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-02230-WHO
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

JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING; CASE NO. 3:17-cv-02230-WHO

1

Subject to and without waiving their rights to challenge any aspect of Defendants’ Removal,

2

Plaintiffs Leanna Blankenship, et al., and defendants and specially-appearing defendants Bayer

3

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

4

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

5

1.

Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on March 10, 2017, and their First Amended

6

Complaint on March 21, 2017, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Riverside.

7

In their Complaint and First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims involving the Essure®

8

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

9

2.

On April 3, 2017, the Coordination Trial Judge of the Superior Court of the State of

10

California, County of Alameda, granted Plaintiffs’ petition for coordination of add-on case with the

11

Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding (“JCCP”) 4887.

12

3.

On April 21, 2017, Bayer filed a Notice of Removal purporting to remove the matter

13

from the Alameda County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Northern

14

District of California. Bayer maintains that its removal to the Northern District of California was

15

proper. [Dkt. No. 1].

16

4.

On April 24, 2017, Bayer filed an administrative motion to relate this matter to

17

another matter pending in the Northern District of California involving the Essure® Device,

18

captioned as Elizabeth Ann Sangimino, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01488-WHA.

19

[Dkt. No. 10]. The Court has not yet ruled on this motion.

20

5.

On April 28, 2017, Bayer filed its Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of federal

21

preemption, among others. [Dkt. No. 14]. The Motion to Dismiss is currently scheduled for hearing

22

on July 19, 2017.

23

6.

Plaintiffs intend to file a Motion to Remand this action to the Superior Court of

24

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

25

lacks jurisdiction over this action.

26

7.

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

27

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

28

Motion to Remand, which will likely contain matters similar to the Motion to Remand which
1
JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING; CASE NO. 3:17-cv-02230-WHO

1

Plaintiffs intend to file in this matter. The briefing schedule on those motions in Sangimino is as

2

follows:

3



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

4
5



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;

6
7



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

8

8.

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

9

of those that will be presented to the Court in this matter, the parties have met and conferred and

10

agree that it would be in the interest of judicial economy to stay the briefing for the Motion to

11

Dismiss and anticipated Motion to Remand in this matter pending the Court’s rulings on the Motion

12

to Dismiss and Motion to Remand in Sangimino. The Parties thus respectfully request and ask the

13

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

14

Plaintiffs’ anticipated Motion to Remand until such time.

15
16

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

17

Dated: May 3, 2017

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

18
By: /s/ Alycia A. Degen
Alycia A. Degen
Bradley J. Dugan

19
20

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

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: May 3, 2017

BARON & BUDD, P.C.
By: /s/ Sindhu S. Daniel
Laura J. Baughman
Sindhu S. Daniel
Russell W. Budd
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Leanna Blankenship, et al.

2
JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING; CASE NO. 3:17-cv-02230-WHO

1

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

2

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

3
4

Dated: May 3, 2017
By: /s/ Alycia A. Degen
Alycia A. Degen

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING; CASE NO. 3:17-cv-02230-WHO

1

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’ anticipated Motion to

4

Remand is STAYED and continued pending the rulings on the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to

5

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

6
7

Dated: May 4, 2017

___________________________________
Honorable William H. Orrick

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
ORDER; CASE NO. 3:17-cv-02230-WHO