Case ID: f-appx_540/html/0650-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gould, Circuit Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Margalit CORBER; Rene Caro; Steve Dantzler; Linda Sowards; Lori Huisman; Johnny George, Sr.; Terry Perry; William Rackley; Angela Young; Pamela Rodriguez; Steven Syverson; Olga Caicoya; Janet Carroll; Rose Cash; Ulad Celentano; Virginia Costanzo; Kimberly Filligim; Armeldia Smith; Carla West; Joanne Bierzynski, individually and as next of kin to Eleanor Wojcik; Sharley Morris; Wyomia Timmons; Dean Reinking; Daniel Thorne; Wendelen Ashby; Carmen Bedford; Claude Commodore; James Henson; Nancy Locke; Mildred Scott; Billie Burnett; Sheena Hall; Brenda Roberge, Individually and as Next of Kin to Ernest Roberge; Deborah Woodsum; Richard Pascuito, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. XANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-56306.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Aug. 30, 2013.
    Filed Sept. 24, 2013.
    Stephen Dennis Behnke, Wright And Schulte, LLC, Vandalia, OH, Amanda Greenburg, Elise R. Sanguinetti, Khorra-mi, LLP, Oakland, CA, Stephen Jerome Randall, Esquire, Pearson, Randall & Schumacher, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Hall R. Marston, Christopher P. Norton, Karen Woodward, Esquire, Sedgwick LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOULD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and LEMELLE, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

We conclude that Plaintiffs petition for coordination was not a proposal to try the cases jointly. See Judith Romo, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceutical USA, Inc., No. 13-80036 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2013). We AFFIRM the district court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.

Gould, Circuit Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent for the same reasons expressed in the dissent to the majority opinion in Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, No. 13-56310. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.