UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 10, 2012
CHERISH M. SMITH, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED,
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO., A OHIO CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS AS CREST,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte
Lara T. Kollios (State Bar No. 235395) firstname.lastname@example.org
Chantelle C. Egan (State Bar No. 257938) email@example.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) firstname.lastname@example.org
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 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
* 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
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 example of the need for transfer to avoid conflicting rulings on
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2012, Gilbert filed a motion with the JPML to transfer all of February 28 with the JPML opposing the motion for transfer while arguing for transfer to the 21 2348, Docket No. 18); 26
key questions and to conserve judicial resources, is the motions to dismiss for lack of subject-2 matter jurisdiction which Defendant has filed in all four cases. These motions raise similar issues 3 of fact and law, they should be reviewed and decided consistently and efficiently, and they should 4 not be the subject of four separate judicial considerations and potentially conflicting rulings; 5
WHEREAS, three of the four courts have already entered case management schedules 6 which conflict with one another and will cause unnecessary duplication and confusion if each 7 case proceeds independently; 8
WHEREAS, the parties have entered stipulations to stay proceedings in the Gilbert and Immerman cases. 10
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their respective 11 counsel, that the case be stayed until further notice, including a stay of the May 22, 2012 Case 12 Management Conference and all related pretrial matters until the pending request before the 13 Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML")-in a case that is substantially similar or 14 identical to this case-can be decided. 15
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April __, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 17 Jones Day By: Lara Kollios Counsel for Defendant
ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45
Dated: April 6, 2012 JONES DAY, 7 8 By: /s/ Lara Kollios Lara Kollios Attorneys for Defendant THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO.
I, Lara Kollios, attest that I obtained the concurrence of Benjamin M. Lopatin in the filing 3 of this document. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the 4 forgoing is true and correct. Executed this 6th day of April, 2012, in San Francisco, California. 5 6
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.