JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY BRIEFING PENDING RULINGS ON MOTION TO REMAND AND MOTION TO DISMISS IN SANGIMINO, et al. v. BAYER CORP. et al.

WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.

Subject to and without waiving their rights to challenge any aspect of Defendants' Removal, Plaintiffs Leanna Blankenship, et al., and defendants and specially-appearing defendants Bayer Corporation, Bayer Essure Inc., Bayer HealthCare LLC, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively, "Bayer"), hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on March 10, 2017, and their First Amended Complaint on March 21, 2017, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Riverside. In their Complaint and First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims involving the Essure® Permanent Birth Control System (the "Essure® Device").

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 Counsel Coordination Proceeding ("JCCP") 4887.

3. On April 21, 2017, Bayer filed a Notice of Removal purporting to remove the matter from the Alameda County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Bayer maintains that its removal to the Northern District of California was proper. [Dkt. No. 1].

4. On April 24, 2017, Bayer filed an administrative motion to relate this matter to another matter pending in the Northern District of California involving the Essure® Device, captioned as Elizabeth Ann Sangimino, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01488-WHA. [Dkt. No. 10]. The Court has not yet ruled on this motion.

5. On April 28, 2017, Bayer filed its Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of federal preemption, among others. [Dkt. No. 14]. The Motion to Dismiss is currently scheduled for hearing on July 19, 2017.

6. Plaintiffs intend to file a Motion to Remand this action to the Superior Court of Alameda County, State of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447, on the grounds that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this action.

7. In the Sangimino matter, the Court has already set a briefing schedule on Bayer's Motion to Dismiss, which is similar to the Motion to Dismiss filed in this matter, and on Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, which will likely contain matters similar to the Motion to Remand which Plaintiffs intend to file in this matter. The briefing schedule on those motions in Sangimino is as follows:

8. In light of the close overlap between the issues being briefed in Sangimino and some of those that will be presented to the Court in this matter, the parties have met and conferred and agree that it would be in the interest of judicial economy to stay the briefing for the Motion to Dismiss and anticipated Motion to Remand in this matter pending the Court's rulings on the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Remand in Sangimino. The Parties thus respectfully request and ask the Court to enter an order in this matter staying all briefing on Bayer's Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs' anticipated Motion to Remand until such time.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Filer's Attestation: Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), regarding signatures, Alycia A. Degen hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from counsel for Plaintiffs.

ORDER

PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES' STIPULATION, and for good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED THAT the briefing on Bayer's Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs' anticipated Motion to Remand is STAYED and continued pending the rulings on the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Remand in the related case Sangimino v. Bayer Corp., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01488-WHA.