United States District Court, S.D. California
SHARON MANIER, TERI SPANO, and HEATHER STANFIELD, individually, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs,
MEDTECH PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation; PRESTIGE BRANDS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, entities, business form unknown, Defendants
For Sharon Manier, individually, on behalf of herself , all others similarly situated, and the general public, Teri Spano, individually, on behalf of herself , all others similarly situated, and the general public, Heather Stanfield, individually, on behalf of herself , all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs: Beatrice Skye Resendes, Ronald Marron, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC, San Diego, CA.
For Medtech Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Prestige Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants: Katherine Elaine Hertel, LEAD ATTORNEY, Alston & Bird, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Lisa R. Bugni, Todd R. David, PRO HAC VICE, Alston and Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA.
For Does 1-20, Inclusive, entities, business from unknown, Defendant: Todd R. David, PRO HAC VICE, Alston and Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY REMAND ORDER PENDING APPEAL [Dkt. No. 18.]
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL, United States District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants' motion to stay remand order pending appeal. (Dkt. No. 18.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition and Defendants replied. (Dkt. Nos. 20, 21.) After a review of the briefing and applicable law, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to stay remand order pending appeal.
Plaintiffs Sharon Manier, Teri Spano and Heather Stanfield (collectively, " Plaintiffs" ) filed this putative class action alleging Defendants Medtech Products, Inc. and Prestige Brands, Inc. (collectively, " Defendants" ) falsely and/or deceptively advertised their homeopathic ear relief product, Murine Ear Drops for Earache Relief in California in San Diego Superior Court. (Dkt. No. 1-1.) Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et. seq. (" CLRA" ); the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. § 17200 et. seq. (" UCL" ), the False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et. seq. (" FAL" ), and breached express and implied warranties of merchantability. (See Dkt. No. 1-1, Compl.)
On January 31, 2014, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal. (Dkt. No. 1.) In response, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) on February 28, 2014. (Dkt. No. 7.) On April 22, 2014, the Court granted Defendants' motion to remand. (Dkt. No. 16). This Court also certified and mailed a copy of its Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand to the San Diego Superior Court on that date. (Id.) Two weeks later, on May 1, 2014, Defendants filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal (" Petition" ) under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c) with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Dkt. No. 17.) On the same day, Defendants also filed the instant Motion to Stay Remand Order Pending Appeal. (Dkt. No. 18.)
On May 20, 2014, the Hon. Eddie C. Sturgeon of the San Diego Superior Court set a Case Management Conference in the case for December 12, 2014. (Dkt. No. 20-1, Resendes Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.)
A. Appeal of Remand Order
Defendants argue that the Court has jurisdiction to issue a stay of the remand order while Plaintiffs contend that the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the instant motion since it certified ...