Filed: Mar. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2015
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER DEFERRING DEFENDANTS' TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT PENDING ACTION BY JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. , District Judge . WHEREAS, on March 6, 2015, Plaintiff Stephen Mangum ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint ("Complaint") in this action against Defendants CooperVision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb Incorporated, 1 Johnson & Johnson Visi
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER DEFERRING DEFENDANTS' TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT PENDING ACTION BY JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. , District Judge . WHEREAS, on March 6, 2015, Plaintiff Stephen Mangum ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint ("Complaint") in this action against Defendants CooperVision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb Incorporated, 1 Johnson & Johnson Visio..
More
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER DEFERRING DEFENDANTS' TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT PENDING ACTION BY JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr., District Judge.
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2015, Plaintiff Stephen Mangum ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint ("Complaint") in this action against Defendants CooperVision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb Incorporated,1 Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC ("Defendants") (collectively referred to as the "Parties");
WHEREAS, the following related putative class actions are currently pending against some or all Defendants in judicial districts around the country:
• Tracy L. Gray et al. v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-02642 (D. Kan.);
• Rachel Miller et al. v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-01028 (N.D. Cal.);
• Suneeta D. Fernandes v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-01045 (N.D. Cal.);
• Machikawa, et al. v. CooperVision, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-01001 (N.D. Cal.);
• Clemente Cesare v. CooperVision, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-60466 (S.D. Fla.);
• Kimberly Martin v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-01090 (N.D. Cal.);
• Susan G. Gordon v. CooperVision, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-01092 (N.D. Cal.);
• Matthew J. Cardamone v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-01093 (N.D. Cal.);
• Gloria Goldblatt v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-01095 (N.D. Cal.);
• Serge Pentsak et al. v. CooperVision, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-01097(N.D. Cal.);
• Juliana Brodsky v. CooperVision, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-01123 (N.D. Cal.);
• Dusty Price et al. v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-01124 (N.D. Cal.);
• Benjamin W. Hewitt et al. v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-01196 (N.D. Cal.);
• Joanne Buckley et al. v. CooperVision, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-01212 (N.D. Cal.);
• Krysta Loera v. CooperVision, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-21033 (S.D. Fla.);
• James Sendzik v. ABB/Con-Cise Optical Group LLC et al., Case No. 15-cv-60534 (S.D. Fla.);
• Mallory L. Grossman v. Novartis Corp. et al., Case No. 15-cv-01930 (D.N.J.);
• Cora B. Smith v. CooperVision, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-21069 (S.D. Fla.);
• Brett Watson v. CooperVision, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-01276 (N.D. Cal.);
• Ben Hawkins v. Alcon Laboratories, et al., Case No. 15-cv-01297 (N.D. Cal.);
• Debra Denton v. CooperVision, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-00117 (E.D. Tenn.);
• Marilyn M. Dedivanaj v. CooperVision, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-01281 (N.D. Cal.);
• Lana Ohmes et al. v. Alcon Laboratories, et al., Case No. 15-cv-01301 (N.D. Cal); and • Kevin Moy v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No. 15-cv-01340 (N.D. Cal).
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2015, Rachel Miller, Caitlin O'Neill, and Tyler Brandafino (the "Miller Plaintiffs") filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") to transfer the actions against Defendants to the Northern District of California for coordination or consolidation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407;
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2015, Clemente Cesare (the "Cesare Plaintiff") filed a motion before the MDL Panel to transfer the actions against Defendants to the Southern District of Florida for coordination or consolidation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407;
WHEREAS the transfer motions were docketed by the MDL Panel under In re: Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2626;
WHEREAS, Defendants' responses to the transfer motions are due to be completed on or before March 30, 2015;
WHEREAS, to conserve the resources of this Court and the Parties, the Parties agree that it is appropriate to defer Defendants' time to respond to the Complaint in this action until the MDL Panel rules on the pending motions for transfer, given the typical practice of filing consolidated master complaint in the transferee court following the grant of a 28 U.S.C. § 1407 motion;
NOW, THEREFORE, AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION BY OR FURTHER ORDERS OF THE COURT, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the Parties that:
1. The undersigned counsel accept service of the Complaint for their respective clients named in the Complaint without waiver of any defenses;
2. Defendants are not required to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' complaint in this action until 60 days after a consolidated amended complaint is filed in In re: Disposable Contact Lens Litigation (MDL No. 2626) in a transferee court (the "Response Date").
3. If Defendants are required to answer or otherwise respond to any other class action complaint in a related action on a date prior to the Response Date, Defendants will answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this action on the same date as in the related class action.
4. If Defendants respond to any formal or informal discovery requests or make any initial disclosures in a related class action, Defendants will provide the same response and/or initial disclosures to Plaintiffs in this action on the same date as in the related class action (without prejudice to the position of any party about when discovery should begin).
Authority for and concurrence in the filing of this stipulated request has been obtained from each of the signatories, pursuant to General Order 45(X)(B).
SO ORDERED.
