Contreras v. Pfizer, Inc. et al
Filing
18
STIPULATION AND ORDER STAYING ACTION AND CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE re 17 . Status Conference set for 2/24/2012 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Jeremy Fogel. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 8/16/11. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2011)
1 KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
GEORGE R. KINGSLEY, ESQ. SBN-38022
2 ERIC B. KINGSLEY, ESQ. SBN-185123
eric@kingsleykingsley.com
3 16133 VENTURA BL., SUITE 1200
ENCINO, CA 91436
4 (818) 990-8300, FAX (818) 990-2903
5 CHARLES JOSEPH, ESQ. FED BAR #CJ-9442
JOSEPH & HERZFELD LLP
6 233 BROADWAY, 5TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10279
7 (212) 688-5640; FAX (212) 688-2548
8
Seeking Admission Pro Hac Vice
MATTHEW D. BRINCKERHOFF ESQ. FED BAR #
9 EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
75 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA, 20th FLOOR
10 NEW YORK, NY 10019
(212) 763-5000; FAX (212) 763-5001
11 Seeking Admission Pro Hac Vice
12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
13
14
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
17
PHILIP M. CONTRERAS, on
behalf of himself and all others
19 similarly situated,
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
PFIZER INC., a Delaware
)
corporation, doing business in
)
California as PFIZER PRODUCTS, )
INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive, )
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________ )
CASE NO.: CV 09-3405-JF
STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION
AND ORDER
27
28
1
______________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION
1
THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:
2
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that all parties desire to stay the proceedings in
3
this action pending the outcome of three appeals that directly implicate the central
4
issue in this case, i.e., whether pharmaceutical sales representatives are properly
5
classified as exempt from Cal. Labor Code overtime requirements under either the
6
outside sales or administrative exemptions. See D'Este v. Bayer, 07-56577, Barnick
7
v. Wyeth, 07-56684, Menes v. Roche, 08-55286 (consolidated 9th Circuit appeals); In
8
Re Novartis Wage and Hour Litigation, No. 09-0437 (2nd Cir.). A stay of this action
9
pending a decision concerning the applicability of the outside sales and/or
10
administrative exemptions under California and federal law will promote efficiency
11
and conserve the resources of the court and the parties.
12
On February 11, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument
13
in the consolidated cases of Menes v. Roche, 08-55286, D'Este v. Bayer, 07-56577,
14
and Barnick v. Wyeth, 07-56684. In all three appeals, the district courts had awarded
15
summary judgment to defendants based on the outside sales exemption under
16
California law.
17
On May 5, 2009, the Ninth Circuit certified two questions to the California
18
Supreme Court, addressing both the outside sales and the administrative exemptions
19
as applied to pharmaceutical representatives.
20
Supreme Court denied the Ninth Circuit's request. On July 15, 2009, the Ninth
21
Circuit entered an order withdrawing Menes v. Roche, 08-55286, D'Este v. Bayer, 07-
22
56577, and Barnick v. Wyeth, 07-56684 from submission pending issuance of the
23
mandate in Harris v. Superior Court, No. 515655, review granted by 171 P.3d 545
24
(Cal. 2007). The consolidated cases will be resubmitted to the Ninth Circuit within
25
twenty days of the California Supreme Court's decision in Harris v. Superior Court.
On June 10, 2009, the California
26
27
28
2
______________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION
1
On July 6, 2010, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in In
2
Re Novartis Wage and Hour Litigation, No. 09-0437 (2nd Cir.), 611 F.3d 141 (2010).
3
This case involves the applicability of the outside sales exemption and the
4
administrative exemption to pharmaceutical representatives under the Fair Labor and
5
Standards Act (“FLSA”), New York state law, and California state law. The Ninth
6
Circuit looking at an issue of federal law recently ruled that sales exemption applied
7
to pharmaceutical sales reps Christopher v. Smith Kline & Beecham (9th Cir. 2011)
8
635 F.3d 383. Plaintiff are in the process of filing a writ of certiorari to the United
9
States Supreme Court.
10
The Second Circuit held that the pharmaceutical representatives were not
11
exempt under the outside sales exemption or the administrative exemption. The bulk
12
of the Court’s analysis relied on the exemptions under the FLSA. However, the
13
Second Circuit went on to note that the overtime wage requirements of “New York
14
law and California law are not meaningfully different from the requirements of the
15
FLSA.” In re Novartis Wage & Hour Litigation., 09-0437-CV, 2010 WL 2667337
16
*15 (2d Cir. July 6, 2010). The defendant filed a Petition for Review to the United
17
States Supreme Court, which was denied on February 28, 2011. See Novartis
18
Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Lopes, 131 S.CT. 1568 (2011).
19
The decision in In re Novartis Wage & Hour Litigation, is obviously not
20
binding on this Court. However, in the interest of providing this Court with a full
21
status report of the state of the law regarding the core issues in this case, Plaintiff felt
22
it was necessary to provide the Court with this information.
23
Other federal district courts have stayed similar cases concerning the
24
classification of pharmaceutical sales representatives pending appeals in related
25
actions. See Silverman v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 06 cv 7272 DSF (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17,
26
2008) [Dkt. No. 188]; Thorpe v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 5:07-cv-05672 RMW
27
28
3
______________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION
1
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2009) [Dkt. No. 54]. Brody v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP,
2
08-56120 (9th Cir. Mar. 3, 2009). Moreover, neither party would be prejudiced by a
3
stay in this action.
4
Wherefore, the parties respectfully request that the Court approve this
5
stipulation for a Stay of Proceedings, and continue the Status Conference set for
6
August 19, 2011, pending the resolution of one or both of the aforementioned
7
appeals.
8
IT IS SO STIPULATED
9
10
DATED: August 12, 2011
11
KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
12
By: /s/ Eric B. Kingsley
ERIC B. KINGSLEY
14
Attorney for Plaintiff
13
15
16
17
DATED: August 12, 2011
LITTLER MENDELSON
18
By: /s/ Kimberly J. Gost
PHILIP A. SIMPKINS
20
KIMBERLY J. GOST
(Admitted pro hac vice)
21
Attorneys for Defendants
19
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED. The status conference is continued to 2/24/12.
24
8/16/11
DATED:________________
25
26
JEREMY FOGEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
4
______________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION
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?