On September 08, 2020 a Order was filed involving a dispute between Acevedo, Steven, Allison Kerns, Alyce Bull, Artemeise Jackson, Ashford, William, August, Michael, Barbara O'Grady, Bemis, Sebastian, Blair, Leonard, Booth, Shirley, Bo Peterson, Boyd, James, Bremenour, Dale, Brett Lazerus, Brett Martin, Brian Gawley, Bruce Macdougall, Bryant, Mildred, Bull, Alyce, Cabral, Richard, Carmina Lavalle, Charles Crane, Crane, Charles, Dale Bremenour, Danny Marlenee, David Mccarroll, David Roberts, Denise Hernandez, Donner-Leak, Herma, Earl Quarteman, Jr., Edna Youngwirth, Eric Mckelvey, Fife, Rebecca, Floyd Patterson, Frederick Glass, Frederick Perry, Gawley, Brian, Glass, Frederick, Harrod, Jacqueline, Herma Donner-Leak, Hernandez, Denise, Hollabaugh, Robert, Ingram, Robert, Irene Steckler, Jackson, Artemeise, Jacqueline Harrod, James Boyd, James Parks, Joan Jones, Johnson, Robert, Jones, Joan, Jones, Natlie, Juanita Papanicolas, Judy Vincent, Karen Thomas, Katrina Winn, Kerns, Allison, Laurie Scott, Lavalle, Carmina, Lazerus, Brett, Lengele, Rodney, Leonard Blair, Lilly, Michael, Louis Makell, Macdougall, Bruce, Makell, Louis, Maldonaldo, Mary, Marlenee, Danny, Martha Rios, Martin, Brett, Mary Maldonaldo, Mary Price, Marzett, Robin, Mccarroll, David, Mckelvey, Eric, Michael August, Michael Lilly, Mildred Bryant, Natlie Jones, O'Grady, Barbara, Papanicolas, Juanita, Parks, James, Patterson, Floyd, Perry, Frederick, Peterson, Bo, Peuse, Wendy, Phyllis Smith, Price, Mary, Quarteman, Earl Jr., Rebecca Fife, Richard Cabral, Rios, Martha, Robert Hollabaugh, Robert Ingram, Robert Johnson, Roberts, David, Robin Marzett, Rodney Lengele, Scott, Laurie, Seabaugh, Timothy, Sebastian Bemis, Sharron Shorter, Shirley Booth, Shorter, Sharron, Smith, Phyllis, Steckler, Irene, Steven Acevedo, Swanson, William, Thomas, Karen, Tifeney Williams, Timothy Seabaugh, Vincent, Judy, Wendy Peuse, William Ashford, Williams, Tifeney, William Swanson, Winn, Katrina, Youngwirth, Edna, and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Usa Corporation, Glaxosmithkline Llc, Grocery Outlet, Kaiser Permanente International, Pfizer Inc., Safeway Health, Inc., Safeway, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Llc, Sanofi Us Services Inc., The Vons Companies, Inc., for Unlimited Civil in the District Court of Alameda County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
‘NCAA 811165 FILED ALAMEDA COUNTY “DEC 2 2 2020 CLERK Na S{PFIOR COURT By. 7 R Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Sanchez v. Safeway RG20073240 Saldivar v. Safeway _ | RG20073262 ORDER (1) STAYING CASES Chung v. Safeway RG20073289 AND (2) SETTING CMC DATE. Henderson v. Safeway RG20073314 Bonvino v. Safeway RG20073321 Date: N/A Ingram v.Safeway __ RG20073373\ Time: N/A Lee v. Safeway RG20073389 Dept: 21 Eggers v. Safeway RG20073452 Merz v. Safeway RG20073455 Manown v. Safeway RG20073564 Lupo v. Safeway RG20073574 Bryant v. Safeway RG20073622 Kinney v. Safeway RG20073641 Garcia v. Safeway RG20073715 Pruitt v. Safeway RG20073727 Duckworth v. Safeway RG20073735 Thomas v. Safeway RG20073759 Andalis v. Safeway RG20073766 19 20 21 CASES SUBJECT TO THIS ORDER 22 The 18 cases identified in the caption each alleges personal injuries relating to the use of 23 the drug Zantac and/or the ingredient Ranitidine. 24 Most or all of these 18 cases were removed to federal court. On 11/23/20, the federal 25 court remanded them all back to the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County. 26 On 11/12/20, plaintiffs in the 18 cases filed petitions for coordination. The Judicial Council website does not yet identify receipt of the petition, the creation of a JCCP, or that the wu JCCP has been sent to a county for assignment to a coordination motion judge.' The petition for coordination argues that any JCCP be assigned to the Superior Court of the State of California. Alameda County. On 12/18/20, the Superior Court reassigned each of the 18 cases to Department 21. The cases are related cases. (CC 3.300.) Department 21 will provide common management of the cases while the petition for coordination is resolved. The court issues this order as the judge assigned to manage each of the 18 cases. It is stillto be determined whether the 18 cases will be coordinated in a JCCP, whether any JCCP will be assigned to Alameda, and whether any JCCP will be assigned to’'this particular judge. RELATED CASES IN FEDERAL COURT There are an additional 16 cases filed in Alameda that appear to assert substantially similar claims but that name different defendants. Those 16 cases are Alameda case numbers: RG20061276, RG20061309, RG20061365, RG20061398, RG20061460, RG20061466, RG20061519, RG20061576, RG20061597, RG20061705, RG20061739, RG20061766, 20 RG20061771, RG20061791, RG20061977. Those 16 cases have been removed to federal court. 21 There isa federal MDL to manage all the federal cases. (Jn re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products 22 Liability Litigation (United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2020) 437 23 F.Supp.3d 1368 (Mem).) 24 25 26 '(https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/CivilCaseCoord_2015toPresent_JCCPLog.pdf) This order does not concern the 16 removed cases. This California court lost jurisdiction of the 16 cases when the notices of removal were filed and now lacks jurisdiction to issue orders in those cases. (28 USC 1446(d): Laguna Village, Inc. v. Laborers' Internat. Union of North America (1983) 35 Cal.3d 174, 180.) ORDER STAYING CASES The court ORDERS that each of the 18 cases identified in the caption of this order is STAYED. The court orders the stay of each of the cases in the interest of justice until appointment of a coordination motion judge. (C.C.P. 187; Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th 739, 758 ["The case management tools available to trialcourts [includes] the inherent authority to stay an action when appropriate"]; Bailey v. Fosca Oil Co., (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 813, 817 ["the power of a court to stay proceedings ...was inherent at common law and is now vested in the superior courts of this state"].) 16 The court issues the stay consistent with the policy of avoiding duplicative work and the 17 possibility of inconsistent orders until a coordination trialjudge is appointed and determines 18 whether to coordinate the cases. (CRC 3.515 [stay pending coordination]; CRC 3.527 [stay after 20 coordination granted].) (See also Schneider v. Vennard (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1340, 1350 21 (‘duplicative litigation of the same issue does not serve the public interest”].) 22 The court orders the stay of the 18 cases as the judge assigned to manage each individual 23 case. The court isnot the coordination motion judge or the coordination trialjudge. 24 H/ 25 26 ORDER SETTING CMC The Court sets aCMC date in allof the 18 cases identified in the caption of this order in Dept 21 for 10:00 am on 5/12/20. Dated: December 22, 2020 Judge of the Superior Court 20 21 22 23 24 25 26