Schmitz v. Sanofi S.A. et al, No. 3:2016cv04619 - Document 13 (N.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION; DIRECTING PARTIES TO SUBMIT JOINT STATUS REPORT. The parties are ordered to file, no later than October 28, 2016, a joint status report if the action has not been transferred by said date. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 09/09/16. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2016)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Schmitz v. Sanofi S.A. et al 1 2 3 4 Doc. 13 Karen Barth Menzies (SBN: 180234) kbm@classlawgroup.com GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 400 Continental Blvd, 6th Floor El Segundo, California 90245 Telephone: 510-350-9240 Facsimile: 510-350-9701 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Eric H. Gibbs (SBN: 178658) Amy M. Zeman (SBN: 273100) ehg@classlawgroup.com amz@classlawgroup.com GIBBS LA GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: 510-350-9700 Facsimile: 510-350-9701 Attorneys for PLAINTIFF 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 G. Gregg Webb (SBN: 298787) gwebb@shb.com SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. One Montgomery, Suite 2700 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: 415-544-1900 Facsimile: 415-391-0281 Attorneys for Defendant SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 20 21 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BERTHA RENEE SCHMITZ, 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiff, vs. SANOFI S.A., AVENTIS PHARMA S.A., and SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, Defendants. 27 Case No. 3:16-cv-04619-MMC ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION; DECLARATION OF G. GREGG WEBB; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO SUBMIT JOINT STATUS REPORT 28 STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION CASE NO. 3:16-CV-04619-MMC 344546 v1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2, Plaintiff Bertha Renee Schmitz and Defendant Sanofi-Aventis 2 U.S. LLC 1 (collectively, “the Parties”) hereby stipulate and request that the Court enter the 3 accompanying Proposed Order staying this action for all purposes pending a decision by the Judicial 4 Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) on the previously filed Motion for Transfer seeking to 5 centralize this case and all other docetaxel cases filed nationally into a Multidistrict Litigation 6 (“MDL”) proceeding (the “MDL Motion”). As described below, Defendant Sanofi-Aventis U.S. 7 LLC did not oppose creation of an MDL. The JPML has set the MDL Motion for hearing on 8 September 29, 2016, and the Parties anticipate that the JPML will issue its ruling shortly thereafter. 9 Granting a brief stay of this action will ensure that the JPML has an opportunity to hear and rule 10 upon the pending Motion for Transfer and will prevent potentially unnecessary and duplicative 11 proceedings before this Court, thereby conserving both this Court and the Parties’ time and 12 resources. 13 In support of this Stipulation, the Parties state further as follows: 14 The Pending MDL Motion for Transfer 15 1. On July 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Transfer before the Judicial Panel on 16 Multidistrict Litigation, requesting creation of an MDL proceeding to centralize all docetaxel cases 17 filed in federal court, including this case. (See In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prod. Liab. Litig., MDL 18 No. 2740 (MDL Dkt. # 1).) Plaintiffs’ initial motion sought to transfer thirty-three actions (id.), and 19 since then, notices of related actions have been filed identifying twenty-six additional actions (see 20 MDL Dkt.). In responding to the MDL Motion, Defendant Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC did not oppose 21 the creation of a multidistrict litigation proceeding for this action and other included actions pending 22 nationwide. (See MDL Dkt. # 42.) 23 Hearing Session on September 29, 2016, in Washington, D.C., and a ruling on whether this case and 24 others will be centralized is anticipated shortly thereafter. (See MDL Dkt. # 27.) The JPML set the hearing on the MDL Motion for its next 25 26 27 28 1 Named Defendants Sanofi S.A. and Aventis Pharma S.A. have not been served in this case. By filing this Stipulation, Defendants expressly do not waive any claims or defenses, including without limitation defenses based on this Court’s lack of personal jurisdiction. 2 STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION CASE NO. 3:16-CV-04619-MMC 1 2. The Parties agree that good cause exists to stay this action to permit the JPML to 2 decide the pending Motion for Transfer. A stay will ensure that the JPML has an opportunity to hear 3 and rule upon the Motion and will prevent potentially unnecessary and duplicative proceedings 4 before this Court. Should the JPML grant the Motion for Transfer this case likely will be transferred 5 away from this Court and into an MDL proceeding established elsewhere. Therefore, a stay will 6 conserve both judicial resources and those of the Parties as well as facilitate the efficient conduct of 7 this action before this Court and as part of any future MDL proceeding. The Parties further agree 8 that a brief stay to permit the JPML to decide the Motion for Transfer will have no adverse effect on 9 future proceedings in this action, nor will such a stay prejudice any of the Parties. 10 11 3. The parties in three Central District cases (identified below) have similarly agreed to stayDanah Andersonpending the JPML’s ruling No.the MDL Motion: all proceedings v. Sanofi S.A., et al., Case on 2:16-CV-06046-JAK-AS; 12 Valesta Collins v. Sanofi S.A., et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-05418-R-RAO; and 13 Maria Concepcion v. Sanofi S.A., et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-06062-SVW-GJS. Current Status of This Action 14 15 16 4. On July 20, 2016, Plaintiff Bertha Renee Schmitz (“Plaintiff”) filed her Complaint 17 and Demand for Jury Trial (“Complaint”) against Defendants Sanofi S.A., Aventis Pharma S.A., and 18 Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC (collectively “Defendants”) (Dkt. #1). 19 5. On July 22, 2016, Plaintiff served Defendant Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC with her 20 Complaint. To date, Defendants Sanofi S.A. and Aventis Pharma S.A., which are both foreign 21 defendants located in France, have not been served. 22 23 24 6. Defendant Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC’s deadline to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint is currently September 14, 2016. 7. In addition, the following early case deadlines currently exist: (1) the Parties’ last 25 day to meet-and-confer regarding ADR process, file ADR Certifications, and file either Stipulation 26 to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference is currently October 20, 2016; (2) an 27 28 3 STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION CASE NO. 3:16-CV-04619-MMC 1 initial Case Management Conference in this matter is set for November 18, 2016; and (3) the 2 attendant Joint CMC Statement is currently due November 10, 2016. Stipulated Stay 3 4 8. For the reasons stated herein, the Parties stipulate to and request a stay of this action 5 for all purposes, including without limitation all responsive pleading, discovery, hearings, and other 6 deadlines, to permit a ruling on the Motion for Transfer currently pending before the Judicial Panel 7 on Multidistrict Litigation, which ruling the Parties expect to receive during the first two weeks of 8 October 2016. The Parties agree that this stay shall remain in full force and effect until lifted by 9 court order upon motion of one or more Parties or as otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL 10 Court following transfer to an MDL. 11 9. No previous time modification has been requested by the Parties or ordered by the 12 Court in this case. Granting this request will have no adverse effect on future proceedings in this 13 matter. 14 Dated: September 8, 2016 GIBBS LAW GROUP 15 By: /s/ Karen Barth Menzies KAREN BATH MENZIES ERIC H. GIBBS AMY M. ZEMAN 16 17 Attorneys for PLAINTIFF 18 19 Dated: September 8, 2016 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 20 21 By: /s/ _G. Gregg Webb_________________ G. GREGG WEBB 22 Attorneys for Defendant SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION CASE NO. 3:16-CV-04619-MMC [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the parties shall file, no later than October 28, 2016, a joint status report to apprise the Court of the status of the Motion to Transfer, if the action has not been transferred by said date. 4 5 6 7 8 DATED: September 9, 2016 ________________________________________ _ _____ ______________________________ _ __ ___ _ HONORABLE MAXINE M.CHESN M.CHESNEY HONORABLE ONO HE N E UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION CASE NO. 3:16-CV-04619-MMC
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
