Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Barbor v. California Physicians' Service, 3:16-cv-01773-WHO. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160825966 Visitors: 2
Filed: Aug. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . Plaintiff Adriana Barbor ("Plaintiff") and Defendant California Physicians' Service dba Blue Shield of California ("Blue Shield" or "Defendant") stipulate, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, as follows: 1. Plaintiff filed this action against Blue Shield Life & Health Insurance Company ("Blue Shield Life") on April 7, 2016. [Dk
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Adriana Barbor ("Plaintiff") and Defendant California Physicians' Service dba Blue Shield of California ("Blue Shield" or "Defendant") stipulate, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed this action against Blue Shield Life & Health Insurance Company ("Blue Shield Life") on April 7, 2016. [Dkt. No. 1.] The case was assigned to the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

2. On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). [Dkt. No. 13.] On June 3, 2016, Blue Shield Life informed Plaintiff's counsel of various defects it had identified with the FAC, including, among other things, that Plaintiff had named the wrong entity. At that time, Blue Shield Life stated that it believed that several arguments it had raised in its motion to dismiss portions of the second amended complaint in Homampour, et al. v. Blue Shield of California Life and Health Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 15-cv-05003-WHO, were applicable to the Barbor FAC.

3. On June 9, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation regarding the filing of an amended complaint and continuation of the case management conference initially set for July 19, 2016. [Dkt. No. 15.] On June 10, 2016, the Court entered the parties' stipulation. [Dkt. No. 16.] Pursuant to the Court's Order, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was due on June 17, 2016, Defendant's response was due on July 18, 2016, and the initial case management conference was continued to August 16, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.

4. On June 16, 2016, Defendant's counsel contacted Plaintiff's counsel, who are also counsel to the Homampour plaintiffs, and inquired whether they intended to file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12 ("Administrative Motion"), with respect to the Homampour and Barbor cases.

5. Plaintiff filed her SAC in this action on June 17, 2016. [Dkt. No. 17.] In the SAC, Plaintiff substituted Blue Shield for Blue Shield Life, which had been incorrectly named as the defendant in this case.

6. On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff's counsel confirmed that they would proceed with the Administrative Motion to relate Barbor to Homampour.

7. On July 12, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation to further extend time for Blue Shield to respond to the SAC, due to the possibility that Barbor and Homampour would be related upon filing of the Administrative Motion to relate the cases, and because Blue Shield intended to raise similar arguments in its motion to dismiss Plaintiff's SAC as it had already raised in the pending motion to dismiss in Homampour. The parties also requested to continue the initial case management conference until after Blue Shield's response deadline. [Dkt. No. 22.]

8. On July 12, 2016, the Homampour plaintiffs filed the Administrative Motion. [Homampour Dkt. No. 32.]

9. On July 15, 2016, the Court entered an Order extending the deadline for Blue Shield to respond to the SAC until August 12, 2016. The Order further provided that, in the event that Blue Shield filed a motion to dismiss the SAC, the Court would vacate the initial case management conference set for August 16, 2016. [Dkt. No. 25.]

10. On July 18, 2016, Blue Shield filed its response supporting the Administrative Motion.

11. On July 21, 2016, Judge Orrick entered an order relating Barbor and Homampour. [Homampour Dkt. No. 36; Barbor Dkt. No. 26.] Barbor was therefore reassigned to Judge Orrick. Judge Orrick re-set the Barbor initial case management conference for August 16, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. before Judge Orrick. [Dkt. No. 27.]

12. On July 26, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation before Judge Orrick, agreeing to extend Blue Shield's time to respond to Plaintiff's SAC to 30 days following the August 10, 2016 hearing on the Homampour motion to dismiss, because the Court's ruling on that motion would inform Blue Shield's response to Plaintiff's SAC. [Barbor Dkt. No. 28.] The parties also agreed that, in the event the Court took the Homampour motion to dismiss under submission on August 10, 2016, the parties could file a stipulation seeking a further extension of time for Blue Shield to respond to Plaintiff's SAC. [Id.] Finally, the parties also agreed to continue the initial case management conference until after Blue Shield's response deadline, to September 13, 2016. [Id.] The Court entered its Order on the stipulation on July 27, 2016. [Dkt. No. 30.]

13. The Homampour motion to dismiss hearing occurred on August 10, 2016. While2 the motion is still under submission, the Court indicated in its minutes that its Order would grant leave to file an amended complaint two weeks after the scheduled September 19, 2016 mediation. [Homampour Dkt. No. 41.]

14. The parties have agreed that Plaintiff, like the Homampour plaintiffs, will file an amended complaint two weeks after the scheduled September 19, 2016 mediation, by October 3, 2016. Blue Shield will have until October 24, 2016 to respond to Plaintiff's third amended complaint.

15. The parties also agree that the initial case management conference should be continued until after Blue Shield's response deadline. The parties agree to continue the initial case management conference to Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., or a subsequent date convenient to the Court.

16. In the event that Blue Shield files a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's third amended complaint, the parties agree that they will file a stipulation to move the initial case management conference to the date of the hearing on Blue Shield's motion.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer