Blankenship et al v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 26

ORDER REMANDING ACTION by Hon. William Alsup granting 25 Stipulation.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2017)

1

4

Laura J. Baughman, CA SBN 263944
Baron & Budd, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75219
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

5

Attorney for Plaintiffs

6

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: 1-213-896-6600

2
3

7
8
9
10
11
12

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

13
14
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18
19

LEANNA BLANKENSHIP, et al.;

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiffs,
v.

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-02230-WHA

JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

BAYER CORP., an Indiana corporation;
BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, a Delaware
company; BAYER ESSURE INC. (F/K/A
CONCEPTUS, INC.), a Delaware corporation;
BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants.

28
JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND; CASE NO. 3:17-cv-02230-WHA

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

1.

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

5

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

6

Riverside. In their Complaint and First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs asserted claims involving

7

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

8
9
10
11
12
13

2.

On April 3, 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 case with the
Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding (“JCCP”) 4887.
3.

On April 21, 2017, Bayer removed the matter from the Alameda County Superior

Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
4.

On April 21, 2017, Bayer filed an administrative motion to relate this matter to

14

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

15

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

16
17
18

5.

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

preemption, among other grounds.
6.

On May 3, 2017 the parties filed a stipulation to stay briefing on Plaintiffs’

19

anticipated Motion to Remand, and on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pending the Northern

20

District of California’s rulings on the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Remand in Sangimino. The

21

Court granted the parties’ Stipulation on May 4, 2017.

22

7.

On May 19, 2017, Plaintiffs moved to remand this action to the Superior Court of

23

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

24

lacks jurisdiction over this action.

25
26

8.

On June 9, 2017, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand in the Sangimino

matter and denied the Motion to Dismiss as moot.

27
28
1
JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND; CASE NO. 3:17-cv-02230-WHA

1
2
3
4
5
6

9.

The parties have met and conferred and agree to remand this case to the Alameda

County Superior Court.
10.

The parties thus respectfully ask the Court to enter an order remanding this case to

state court based on the stipulation of the parties.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: June 19, 2017

7

By: /s/Laura J. Baughman
Laura J. Baughman
Sindhu S. Daniel
Russell W. Budd

8
9

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

BARON & BUDD, P.C.

Dated: June 19, 2017

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
By: /s/Alycia A. Degen
Alycia A. Degen
Bradley J. Dugan
Attorneys for Defendants and Specially Appearing
Defendants Bayer Corporation, Bayer HealthCare
LLC, Bayer Essure Inc., and Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND; CASE NO. 3:17-cv-02230-WHA

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

LEANNA BLANKENSHIP, et al;

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-02230-WHA

Plaintiffs,

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE JOINT
STIPULATION TO REMAND

v.
BAYER CORP., an Indiana corporation;
BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, a Delaware
company; BAYER ESSURE INC. (F/K/A
CONCEPTUS, INC.), a Delaware corporation;
BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants.

18
19
20

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

21

ORDERED THAT Blankenship v. Bayer Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-02230-WHA, be

22

remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda.

23

June 20, 2017.
DATED: __________________

___________________________________
Honorable William Alsup

24
25
26
27
28
1

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND - CASE NO. 3:17-cv-02230-WHA