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

WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Selene Adamczyk, 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 complaint on February 28, 2017, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda. In their complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims involving the Essure® Permanent Birth Control System (the "Essure® Device").

2. On April 3, 2017, Bayer removed the matter from the Alameda County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. [Dkt. No. 1].

3. Bayer filed its Motion to Dismiss on April 10, 2017, on the grounds of federal preemption, among other grounds. [Dkt. No. 17]. The Motion to Dismiss is currently scheduled for hearing on June 8, 2017.

4. On April 19, 2017, Plaintiffs filed 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. [Dkt. No. 21].

5. On April 7, 2017, this matter was deemed related to another matter pending before this Court 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. 14].

6. 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 is similar to the Motion to Remand filed in this matter. The briefing schedule on those motions in Sangimino is as follows:

7. In light of the close overlap between the issues being briefed in Sangimino and 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 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' 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.

[PROPOSED] 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' Motion to Remand are STAYED pending the Court's 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.