King County et al v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd et al

Filing 47

STIPULATION AND ORDER re Parties' 46 Stipulated Motion Regarding Briefing Schedule for Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is due by 11/17/2021. Plaintiffs' Opposition is due by 1/17/2022. Defendants' Reply is due by 2/16/2022. The Motion shall be noted for 2/18/2022. If the case is not dismissed, the parties shall meet and confer following the Court's resolution of that motion and submit a status report including a proposed case schedule (or schedules if agreement cannot be reached), including a deadline for the Class Certification Motion, within 30 days of this Court's resolution of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (LH)

1

Honorable Robert S. Lasnik

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

9
10
11

KING COUNTY and CITY OF
TACOMA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiffs,
v.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and
TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC.,

No. 2:21-cv-00477-RSL
STIPULATED MOTION AND
ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO
DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT

Defendants.

18
19
20

INTRODUCTION

21

Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva Pharmaceuticals”), Teva

22

Neuroscience, Inc. (“Teva Neuroscience”), and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., (“TPI”)

23

(Teva Pharmaceuticals, Teva Neuroscience, and TPI collectively, “Defendants”) and Plaintiffs

24

King County and City of Tacoma (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) seek this Court’s approval of a

25

briefing schedule and enlarged page limitation for briefing on Defendants’ anticipated Motion to

26

Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint as set forth below.

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER
REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR
MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
No. 2:21-cv-00477-RSL – Page 1

1
2

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed their putative class action Complaint against Defendants on April 8, 2021.

3

See Complaint (Dkt. No. 1). Teva Pharmaceuticals and Teva Neuroscience were served with a

4

summons and the Complaint shortly thereafter. See Dkt. Nos. 5-6. Following the Court’s

5

approval of a Stipulated Motion to Extend the Deadline for Teva Pharmaceuticals and Teva

6

Neuroscience to respond to the Complaint, Teva Pharmaceuticals and Teva Neuroscience moved

7

for leave to file an over-length Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted on June 22, 2021.

8

See Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Over-Length Brief (Dkt. No. 22).

9

Teva Pharmaceuticals and Teva Neuroscience filed their Motion to Dismiss on July 2,

10

2021. See Joint Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 27). Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs and Defendants

11

stipulated to a briefing schedule on the Joint Motion to Dismiss, which the Court approved on

12

July 7, 2021. See Order Regarding Briefing Schedule on Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 29).

13

On or about July 6, 2021, a summons and the Complaint were served upon TPI in Tel

14

Aviv, Israel. TPI believes that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. Further, TPI wished

15

to adopt the arguments made by Teva Pharmaceuticals and Teva Neuroscience in the Joint

16

Motion to Dismiss. Given the pendency of the Joint Motion to Dismiss, the Parties proposed a

17

briefing schedule for TPI’s Motion to Dismiss. Under that briefing schedule, Plaintiffs would

18

file an omnibus response to the Joint Motion to Dismiss and TPI’s Motion to Dismiss and

19

Defendants would file an omnibus reply in support of those motions. Further, the combined

20

length of the Joint Motion to Dismiss and TPI’s Motion to Dismiss and the length of Plaintiffs’

21

omnibus response to those motions could be up to sixty (60) pages. This Court approved the

22

Parties’ Stipulated Motion Regarding Briefing on the Motions to Dismiss on July 22, 2021. See

23

Order Regarding Briefing Schedule on Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 38). TPI filed its Motion to

24

Dismiss on August 30, 2021. See Dkt. No. 39.

25
26

After TPI’s filing of its Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs elected to amend their Complaint
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Parties conferred and agreed

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER
REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR
MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
No. 2:21-cv-00477-RSL – Page 2

1

that the deadline for Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint should be extended to September 28,

2

2021, and that upon filing of an amended Complaint the pending Motions to Dismiss should be

3

denied as moot. The Parties stipulated to that effect, and the Court approved the Parties’

4

stipulation on September 20, 2021. See Order Extending Deadline to Amend Complaint (Dkt.

5

No. 43). Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) (Dkt. No. 45) on September

6

28, 2021.

7

For the reasons set forth in Teva Pharmaceuticals and Teva Neuroscience’s Motion for

8

Over-length Brief (Dkt. No. 20) and because TPI intends additionally to move to dismiss for lack

9

of personal jurisdiction, the Parties have conferred and agree that, subject to this Court’s

10

approval, additional pages should be granted and the briefing schedule should be enlarged for

11

Defendants’ anticipated Motion to Dismiss the FAC. The Parties propose that:

12
13
14
15
16

1.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be filed no later than November 17, 2021,

and that the page limitation be fifty-five (55);
2.

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ anticipated Motion to Dismiss be

filed no later than January 17, 2022, and that the page limitation be fifty-five (55); and
3.

Defendants’ Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss be filed no later

17

than February 16, 2022, and that the page limitation be twenty-seven (27).

18

Additionally, as the Parties agreed in their Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan (Dkt.

19

No. 19), the Parties believe that the deadline for Plaintiffs’ anticipated Motion for Class

20

Certification should not be set until after the Court resolves Defendants’ anticipated Motion to

21

Dismiss. The Parties believe good cause exists to extend the deadline for class certification

22

under LCR 23(i)(3) due to the anticipated pendency of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the

23

complexity of the transactions involved, and the size of the proposed class.

24

Accordingly, the Parties agree, subject to this Court’s approval, to the following:

25
26

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER
REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR
MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
No. 2:21-cv-00477-RSL – Page 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

STIPULATION
1.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, not to exceed fifty-five (55) pages, shall be filed

no later than November 17, 2021;
2.

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, not to exceed fifty-five

(55) pages shall be filed no later than January 17, 2022;
3.

Defendants’ Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss, not to exceed twenty-

seven (27) pages, shall be filed no later than February 16, 2022;

8

4.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss shall be noted for Friday, February 18, 2022; and

9

5.

Good cause—specifically the anticipated pendency of Defendants’ Motion to

10

Dismiss, the complexity of the transactions involved, and the size of the proposed class—exists

11

to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification beyond the default deadline

12

set forth in LCR 23(i)(3). Unless the Defendants’ anticipated Motion to Dismiss results in

13

dismissal of this case, the Parties are directed to meet and confer following the Court’s resolution

14

of that motion and submit a status report including a proposed case schedule (or schedules if

15

agreement cannot be reached), including a deadline for the Class Certification Motion, within 30

16

days of this Court’s resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

17
18

DATED: October 4, 2021.

19

KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

20

By: /s/ Alison E. Chase
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, WSBA #16569
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, WSBA #29576
Matthew M. Gerend, WSBA #43276
Felicia J. Craick, WSBA #54505
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

By: /s/ Matt Owen
Devora W. Allon (admitted pro hac vice)
Jay Lefkowitz (admitted pro hac vice)
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

21
22
23
24
25
26

Matt Owen (admitted pro hac vice)
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER
REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR
MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
No. 2:21-cv-00477-RSL – Page 4

1
2
3
4
5

Alison E. Chase (admitted pro hac vice)
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs King County
and City of Tacoma

Washington, D.C. 20004
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
ARETE LAW GROUP PLLC
By: /s/ Jeremy E. Roller
Jeremy E. Roller, WSBA No. 32021
1218 Third Avenue, Suite 2100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

6
7
8
9
10

Attorneys for Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., Teva Neuroscience, Inc., and Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.

11
12
13
14
15

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

DATED: October 5, 2021.

18
19

R b t S. Lasnik
Robert S L ik
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER
REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR
MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
No. 2:21-cv-00477-RSL – Page 5