Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cherish M. Smith, As An Individual, and On v. the Procter & Gamble Co.

April 10, 2012

CHERISH M. SMITH, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO., A OHIO CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS AS CREST,
DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Lara T. Kollios (State Bar No. 235395) lkollios@jonesday.com Chantelle C. Egan (State Bar No. 257938) cegan@jonesday.com JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 Hugh R. Whiting (admitted pro hac vice) hrwhiting@jonesday.com JONES DAY North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 586-3939 Facsimile: (216) 579-0212 Attorneys for Defendant 11 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO.

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR STAY

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(a), Plaintiff Cherish M. Smith, individually and on 24 behalf of a purported class ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant The Procter & Gamble Company 25 ("Defendant") (jointly referred to herein as the "Parties"), through their duly authorized 26 undersigned counsel, stipulate and request as follows:

WHEREAS, currently, there are four separate lawsuits (including the above-captioned 28 matter) now pending in four different federal district courts, all filed within about three months, and all asserting similar claims based on allegations about marketing Crest Sensitivity Treatment 2 & Protection toothpaste ("Crest STP") -- the other three cases are:

("Rossi")

* Rossi v. The Procter and Gamble Company, D.N.J., Case No. 2:11-cv-07238-JLL-MAH 4

* Gilbert v. The Procter & Gamble Company, S.D. Ohio, Case No. 1:12-cv-00040-TSB 6

("Gilbert")

* Immerman v. The Procter & Gamble Company, N.D. Ohio, Case No. 1:12-cv-00068 8 10 practices related to Crest STP; 11 12 same core group of allegations; 13

("Immerman");

WHEREAS, these cases all seek class certification and allege misleading marketing

WHEREAS, there are some substantive differences among the claims, they involve the

WHEREAS, Rossi seeks certification of both a nationwide and a New Jersey-only class, Gilbert seeks certification of an Ohio-only class, Immerman seeks certification of both a 15 nationwide and an Ohio-only class, and here, Plaintiffs seek certification of California-only class; 16 17 these actions to the Southern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. (MDL No. 2348, 18 Docket No. 1.), Plaintiff in this case filed a response on February 8 in support of consolidation 19 and transfer seeking transfer to the Northern District of California, Immerman filed a response on 20 Northern District of Ohio if the JPML were to grant the transfer motion (MDL No. 2348, Docket 22 No. 16.), Rossi filed a response with the JPML on February 28 supporting the motion for transfer 23 and seeking transfer to the District of New Jersey, and on March 13, 2012, Defendant filed a 24 response in support of transfer of all of these actions to the Southern District of Ohio (MDL No. 25

WHEREAS, the Parties believe that staying this case until the JPML's ruling on the 27 transfer motion will avoid conflicts, conserve resources, and will otherwise promote efficient 28 determination of the actions. An ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.