Filed: Jun. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 22, 2017
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND; [PROPOSED ORDER] WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Plaintiffs Heather Eisenberg, 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 27, 2017, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda. In their complaint, Plaintiffs
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND; [PROPOSED ORDER] WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Plaintiffs Heather Eisenberg, 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 27, 2017, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda. In their complaint, Plaintiffs a..
More
JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND; [PROPOSED ORDER]
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Heather Eisenberg, 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 27, 2017, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda. In their complaint, Plaintiffs asserted claims involving the Essure® Permanent Birth Control System.
2. On March 30, 2017, Bayer removed the matter from the Alameda County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
3. Bayer filed its Motion to Dismiss on April 6, 2017, on the grounds of federal preemption, among other grounds.
4. Plaintiffs have indicated their intention to file a Motion to Remand.
5. On April 27, 2017, briefing on Bayer's Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs' anticipated Motion to Remand was stayed pending this Court's decision in a related case 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.
6. On June 9, 2017, this Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand in the Sangimino matter and denied the Motion to Dismiss as moot.
7. The parties have met and conferred and agree to remand this case to the Alameda County Superior Court.
8. The parties thus respectfully ask the Court to enter an order remanding this case to state court based on the stipulation of the parties.
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 Eisenberg v. Bayer Corporation, Case No. 3:17-CV-01761-WHA, be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
