Perkins v. Sentry Equipment Erectors, Inc.

Filing 9

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES re 6 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES filed by Sentry Equipment Erectors, Inc.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 3/10/16. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2016)

1
2
3
4
5

Craig A. Livingston – SBN 148551
Crystal L. Van Der Putten – SBN 227262
LIVINGSTON LAW FIRM
A Professional Corporation
1600 South Main Street, Suite 280
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

6
7

Attorneys for Defendant
SENTRY EQUIPMENT ERECTORS, INC.

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

THE LAGUNITAS BREWING
COMPANY,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SENTRY EQUIPMENT ERECTORS, INC., )
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
CHARLES CHRISTOPHER PERKINS, an )
individual,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SENTRY EQUIPMENT ERECTORS, INC., )
a Virginia Corporation and DOES 1-25,
)
inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 4:15-cv-02971-KAW
Case No. 3:15-cv-06044-MEJ
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONSOLIDATING
CASE NOS. 4:15-CV-02971-KAW
AND 3:15-CV-06044-MEJ

23

Plaintiffs THE LAGUNITAS BREWING COMPANY (“LAGUNITAS”), TWIN CITY

24

FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY (“TWIN CITY”) and CHARLES CHRISTOPHER PERKINS

25

and DEFENDANT SENTRY EQUIPMENT ERECTORS, INC. (“SENTRY”), by and through

26

their respective counsel of record, HEREBY STIPULATE as follows:

27
28

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Lagunitas Brewing Company, et al. v. Sentry Equipment Erectors, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-02971-KAW and
Perkins v. Sentry Equipment Erectors, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-06044-MEJ
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASE NOS. 4:15-CV-02971-KAW AND 3:15CV-06044-MEJ
-1-

1

1. Plaintiff LAGUNITAS filed a subrogation Complaint in the Sonoma County Superior

2

Court on or about June 15, 2015, naming defendant SENTRY, Sonoma County Superior Court

3

Case No. SCV257294. SENTRY removed the case to the United States District Court for the

4

Northern District of California on or about June 29, 2015, Case No. 4:15-cv-02971-KAW and

5

the case is currently pending before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore.

6

2. On or about July 28, 2015, LAGUNITAS filed the operative Second Amended Complaint

7

(“LAGUNITAS SAC”) and added plaintiff TWIN CITY, LAGUNITAS’ workers’ compensation

8

insurer. The LAGUNITAS SAC is a subrogation action seeking reimbursement for worker’s

9

compensation benefits paid by TWIN CITY to LAGUNITAS’ employee PERKINS.

10

3. The LAGUNITAS SAC contains causes of action three causes of action: 1) Negligence;

11

2) Strict Products Liability (manufacturing, design and warning defect); and 3) Breach of the

12

Implied Warranties of Merchantability and Fitness.

13

4. No Case Management Order has been issued in the LAGUNITAS/TWIN CITY action

14

and the Court extended the mediation deadline to allow the parties to resolve the issue of

15

consolidation.

16

5. Plaintiff PERKINS filed a Complaint in the Sonoma County Superior Court on or about

17

August 14, 2015, naming defendant SENTRY, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No.

18

SCV257582. SENTRY removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern

19

District of California on or about December 22, 2015, Case No. 3:15-cv-06044-MEJ and the case

20

is currently pending before Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James.

21
22
23

6. The PERKINS Complaint is a complaint for personal injuries PERKINS sustained while
in the course and scope of his employment with LAGUNITAS.
7. The PERKINS Complaint includes five causes of action: 1) Negligence; 2) Strict

24

Products Liability – Manufacturing Defect; 3) Strict Products Liability – Design Defect; 4) Strict

25

Products Liability – Failure to Warn; and 5) Breach of Implied Warranties of Merchantability

26

and Fitness.

27
28

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Lagunitas Brewing Company, et al. v. Sentry Equipment Erectors, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-02971-KAW and
Perkins v. Sentry Equipment Erectors, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-06044-MEJ
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASE NOS. 4:15-CV-02971-KAW AND 3:15CV-06044-MEJ
-2-

1
2

8. The initial case management conference in the PERKINS action is not scheduled to take
place until March 24, 2016. Accordingly, no Case Management Order has issued.

3

9. Both the LAGUNITAS/TWIN CITY action and the PERKINS action arise from an

4

accident occurring on August 19, 2013 at 1280 North McDowell Boulevard in Petaluma,

5

California and in which PERKINS sustained personal injuries while in the course and scope of

6

his employment with LAGUNITAS. PERKINS and LAGUNITAS/TWIN CITY allege that

7

PERKINS was injured while troubleshooting an issue with a Bulk Depalletizer machine

8

SENTRY sold and delivered to the LAGUNITAS premises in or about June 2013. All plaintiffs

9

claim SENTRY’s Bulk Depalletizer suffered from product defects (manufacturing, design and

10

warning) for which SENTRY is responsible.

11

10. The LAGUNITAS SAC and the PERKINS Complaint contain the same causes of action

12

and nearly identical factual allegations which create common issues of law and fact sufficient to

13

warrant consolidation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42.

14
15

11. Consolidation of the LAGUNITAS/TWIN CITY and PERKINS matters will promote
judicial efficiency and result in efficiency for all parties.

16
17

12. Consolidation of the LAGUNITAS/TWIN CITY and PERKINS matters will not create
inconvenience, delay or expense.

18
19

13. Moreover, California law requires consolidation of actions against third parties by the
employer and employee if brought independently. Cal. Labor Code §2853.

20

14. Accordingly, LAGUNITAS, TWIN CITY, PERKINS and SENTRY agree that the

21

LAGUNITAS/TWIN CITY and PERKINS actions, respectively Case Nos. 4:15-CV-02971-

22

KAW and Case No. 3:15-CV-06044-MEJ, should be consolidated for pre-trial proceedings, trial

23

and appeal.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Lagunitas Brewing Company, et al. v. Sentry Equipment Erectors, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-02971-KAW and
Perkins v. Sentry Equipment Erectors, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-06044-MEJ
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASE NOS. 4:15-CV-02971-KAW AND 3:15CV-06044-MEJ
-3-

1

15. It is further agreed that the PERKINS action should be reassigned to the Honorable

2

Kandis A. Westmore, the magistrate judge handling the LAGUNITAS/TWIN CITY action as it

3

was the earliest filed action.

4
5

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: February 12, 2016

ADELSON, TESTAN, BRUNDO, NOVELL &
JIMENEZ

6

/S/ Davil

7

By
Davil Vasquez, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
THE LAGUNITAS BREWING
COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION; AND TWIN CITY FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, AN INDIANA
CORPORATION

8
9
10
11
12

Vasquez

Dated: February 12, 2016

KRANKEMANN PETERSEN LLP
/S/ W.

13

Christian Krankemann

By
W. Christian Krankemann, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHARLES CHRISTOPHER PERKINS

14
15
16
17

Dated: February 12, 2016

LIVINGSTON LAW FIRM
/S/ Craig

18

A. Livingston

By
19
20

Craig A. Livingston
Crystal L. Van Der Putten
Attorneys for Defendant
SENTRY EQUIPMENT ERECTORS, INC.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Lagunitas Brewing Company, et al. v. Sentry Equipment Erectors, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-02971-KAW and
Perkins v. Sentry Equipment Erectors, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-06044-MEJ
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASE NOS. 4:15-CV-02971-KAW AND 3:15CV-06044-MEJ
-4-

1
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 and the parties’ stipulation, and good

3
4

cause appearing, Case No. 4:15-cv-02971-KAW, entitled The Lagunitas Brewing Company, et

5

al. v. Sentry Equipment Erectors, Inc., and Case No. 3:15-cv-06044-MEJ, entitled Perkins v.

6

Sentry Equipment Erectors, Inc., shall be consolidated for pre-trial proceedings, trial and appeal.

7

Perkins v. Sentry Equipment Erectors, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-06044-MEJ, shall be

8

reassigned to Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore.

9
10

The clerk shall cause a copy of this Order to be placed in the separate file for Perkins v.
Sentry Equipment Erectors, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-06044-MEJ.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated:

3/10/16

KANDIS A. WESTMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Lagunitas Brewing Company, et al. v. Sentry Equipment Erectors, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-02971-KAW and
Perkins v. Sentry Equipment Erectors, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-06044-MEJ
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASE NOS. 4:15-CV-02971-KAW AND 3:15CV-06044-MEJ
-5-