On May 03, 2019 a
Order to Show Cause
was filed
involving a dispute between
Lynn, Teah,
and
Rite Aid Corporation A Delaware Corporation,
for Product Liability-Complex
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
M. Goldmanéitate Bar No.233840)
Jeffrey
Emailfioldmanj epperlaw.com
Matthew Ladner tate Bar N0. 284594)
_
.
F I L E D
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA
Ema11: ladnerm@fip§erlaw.com COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
PEPPER HAMILTON SAN BERNARowo DISTRICT
4 Park Plaza, Suite 1200
Irvine California 92614-2524 DEC 14 2021
Telepfigne: 949.567.3500
FaCSImlle: 949.863.0151
Attorne
RITE A
s for Defendant
D CORPORATION
BY
%
AL IE
(£14,
am
cenvmres. DEPmr‘v"
..
\OOONQ
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — COMPLEX LITIGATON
TEAH LYNN, individuall and on Case No. CIV DS 1913904
behalf of a class of similar y
12 situated individuals, Honorable David Cohn
Crtrm.: S-26
13 Plaintiff,
JOINT SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE
14 V. TO THE COURT’S OSC
15 RITE AID CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation, and DOES
16 1 through 100, incluswe,
17 Defendant.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S OSC
\y ‘
\y
The undersigned counsel (“Counsel”) for Thea Lynn and Rite Aid Corporation
(collectively, the “Parties”) hereby submit this Joint Submission In Response to the Court’s OSC
regarding the imposition 0f sanctions.
On July 26, 2021, this Court held a hearing regarding the final distribution of funds in
connection with the Court-approved class settlement in this action. At the hearing, counsel for
Plaintiff, Gerald Malanga, informed the Court that the funds had been distributed. The Court then
set a further hearing for September 23, 2021 regarding final distribution 0f funds.
Also at the July 26, 2021 hearing, Counsel had understood the Court t0 state that if the
Parties submitted a declaration from the claims administrator attesting t0 the full and final
distribution of funds at least ten days before the September 23, 2021 hearing, that hearing would
10
come off calendar. Further, while Counsel understood the Court t0 also request that an amended
11
judgment be submitted for execution, however, Counsel did not realize that the Court similarly
12
wanted the amended judgment t0 be filed at least ten days before the September 23, 202] hearing.
13
Following the July 26, 2021 hearing, Counsel recalled that the requested claims
14
administrator declaration had already been submitted to the Court prior t0 the July 26, 2021
hearing, and thus the requested declaration was already on file more than ten days before the
16
September 23, 2021 hearing. On the other hand, Counsel did not realize that the Court had
17
entered a Minute Order requiring that the amended judgment also be on file at least ten days
18
before the subsequent hearing, and, regrettably, that amended judgment was not submitted within
19
that time frame. Due to Counsel’s misunderstanding, Counsel did not appear at the
20
September 23, 2021 hearing.
21
When counsel for Rite Aid Corporation visited the Court’s docket subsequent to the
22
September 23, 2021 hearing, he saw that a Minute Order had been entered that reflected an OSC
23
as to why “[s]anctions in the amount 0f $250 payable to The Superior Court, should not be
24
imposed on plaintiffs’ and defense counsel for failure t0 appear at today’s hearing.” Additionally,
25
the Order states that if“a declaration indicating all funds have been disbursed and an amended
26
judgment is received at least 10 days in advance 0f the next hearing date [i.e., December 22,
27
2021], this matter may be taken offcalendar.” Therefore, 0n October 1, 2021, Rite Aid
28
l
JOINT SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S OSC
Document Filed Date
December 14, 2021
Case Filing Date
May 03, 2019
Category
Product Liability-Complex
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
M. Goldmanéitate Bar No.233840) Jeffrey Emailfioldmanj epperlaw.com Matthew Ladner tate Bar N0. 284594) _ . F I L E D SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA Ema11: ladnerm@fip§erlaw.com COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO PEPPER HAMILTON SAN BERNARowo DISTRICT 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1200 Irvine California 92614-2524 DEC 14 2021 Telepfigne: 949.567.3500 FaCSImlle: 949.863.0151 Attorne RITE A s for Defendant D CORPORATION BY % AL IE (£14, am cenvmres. DEPmr‘v" .. \OOONQ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — COMPLEX LITIGATON TEAH LYNN, individuall and on Case No. CIV DS 1913904 behalf of a class of similar y 12 situated individuals, Honorable David Cohn Crtrm.: S-26 13 Plaintiff, JOINT SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE 14 V. TO THE COURT’S OSC 15 RITE AID CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 16 1 through 100, incluswe, 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S OSC \y ‘ \y The undersigned counsel (“Counsel”) for Thea Lynn and Rite Aid Corporation (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby submit this Joint Submission In Response to the Court’s OSC regarding the imposition 0f sanctions. On July 26, 2021, this Court held a hearing regarding the final distribution of funds in connection with the Court-approved class settlement in this action. At the hearing, counsel for Plaintiff, Gerald Malanga, informed the Court that the funds had been distributed. The Court then set a further hearing for September 23, 2021 regarding final distribution 0f funds. Also at the July 26, 2021 hearing, Counsel had understood the Court t0 state that if the Parties submitted a declaration from the claims administrator attesting t0 the full and final distribution of funds at least ten days before the September 23, 2021 hearing, that hearing would 10 come off calendar. Further, while Counsel understood the Court t0 also request that an amended 11 judgment be submitted for execution, however, Counsel did not realize that the Court similarly 12 wanted the amended judgment t0 be filed at least ten days before the September 23, 202] hearing. 13 Following the July 26, 2021 hearing, Counsel recalled that the requested claims 14 administrator declaration had already been submitted to the Court prior t0 the July 26, 2021 hearing, and thus the requested declaration was already on file more than ten days before the 16 September 23, 2021 hearing. On the other hand, Counsel did not realize that the Court had 17 entered a Minute Order requiring that the amended judgment also be on file at least ten days 18 before the subsequent hearing, and, regrettably, that amended judgment was not submitted within 19 that time frame. Due to Counsel’s misunderstanding, Counsel did not appear at the 20 September 23, 2021 hearing. 21 When counsel for Rite Aid Corporation visited the Court’s docket subsequent to the 22 September 23, 2021 hearing, he saw that a Minute Order had been entered that reflected an OSC 23 as to why “[s]anctions in the amount 0f $250 payable to The Superior Court, should not be 24 imposed on plaintiffs’ and defense counsel for failure t0 appear at today’s hearing.” Additionally, 25 the Order states that if“a declaration indicating all funds have been disbursed and an amended 26 judgment is received at least 10 days in advance 0f the next hearing date [i.e., December 22, 27 2021], this matter may be taken offcalendar.” Therefore, 0n October 1, 2021, Rite Aid 28 l JOINT SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S OSC