Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01773/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01773-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

MANATT, PHELPS &

PHILLIPS, LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

LOS A NG EL ES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CMC AND TO EXTEND TIME FOR 

DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-01773-WHO

MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP

GREGORY N. PIMSTONE (CA Bar No. 150203)

JOHN LEBLANC (CA Bar No. 155842)

ILEANA M. HERNANDEZ (CA Bar No. 198906)

LEAH R. ADAMS (CA Bar No. 266645)

11355 West Olympic Boulevard

Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614

Telephone: (310) 312-4000

Facsimile: (310) 312-4224

Attorneys for Defendant

CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE dba 

BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA

KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP

GLENN R. KANTOR (CA Bar No. 122643)

TIMOTHY J. ROZELLE (CA Bar No. 298332)

19839 Nordhoff Street

Northridge, CA 91324

Telephone: (818) 886-2525

Facsimile: (818) 350-6272

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ADRIANA BARBOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIANA BARBOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE 

dba BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:16-cv-01773-WHO

Honorable William H. Orrick

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

CONTINUE THE INITIAL CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND TO 

EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT

CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE 

DBA BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA TO 

RESPOND TO THE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Complaint Filed: April 7, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01773-WHO Document 30 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 4
MANATT, PHELPS &

PHILLIPS, LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

LOS A NG EL ES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CMC AND TO EXTEND TIME FOR 

DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-01773-WHO

Plaintiff Adriana Barbor (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant California Physicians’ Service dba 

Blue Shield of California (“Blue Shield” or “Defendant”) stipulate, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 

6-2, as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed this action against Blue Shield Life & Health Insurance Company 

(“Blue Shield Life”) on April 7, 2016. [Dkt. No. 1.] The case was assigned to the Honorable 

Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 

2. On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). [Dkt. No. 

13.] On June 3, 2016, Blue Shield Life informed Plaintiff’s counsel of various defects it had 

identified with the FAC, including, among other things, that Plaintiff had named the wrong entity. 

At that time, Blue Shield Life stated that it believed that several arguments it had raised in its 

motion to dismiss portions of the second amended complaint in Homampour, et al. v. Blue Shield 

of California Life and Health Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 15-cv-05003-WHO, were 

applicable to the Barbor FAC.

3. On June 9, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation regarding the filing of an amended 

complaint and continuation of the case management conference initially set for July 19, 2016. 

[Dkt. No. 15.] On June 10, 2016, the Court entered the parties’ stipulation. [Dkt. No. 16.] 

Pursuant to the Court’s Order, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was due on June 

17, 2016, Defendant’s response was due on July 18, 2016, and the initial case management 

conference was continued to August 16, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.

4. On June 16, 2016, Defendant’s counsel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel, who are also 

counsel to the Homampour plaintiffs, and inquired whether they intended to file an 

Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, pursuant to Civil Local 

Rule 3-12 (“Administrative Motion”), with respect to the Homampour and Barbor cases. 

5. Plaintiff filed her SAC in this action on June 17, 2016. [Dkt. No. 17.] In the SAC, 

Plaintiff substituted Blue Shield for Blue Shield Life, which had been incorrectly named as the 

defendant in this case.

6. On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed that they would proceed with the

Administrative Motion to relate Barbor to Homampour.

Case 3:16-cv-01773-WHO Document 30 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 4
MANATT, PHELPS &

PHILLIPS, LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

LOS A NG EL ES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CMC AND TO EXTEND TIME FOR 

DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-01773-WHO

7. On July 12, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation to further extend time for Blue 

Shield to respond to the SAC, due to the possibility that Barbor and Homampour would be 

related upon filing of the Administrative Motion to relate the cases, and because Blue Shield 

intended to raise similar arguments in its motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s SAC as it has already 

raised in the pending motion to dismiss in Homampour. The parties also requested to continue the 

initial case management conference until after Blue Shield’s response deadline. [Dkt. No. 22.] 

8. On July 12, 2016, the Homampour plaintiffs filed the Administrative Motion. 

[Homampour Dkt. No. 32.]

9. On July 15, 2016, the Court entered an Order extending the deadline for Blue 

Shield to respond to the SAC until August 12, 2016. The Order further provided that, in the event 

that Blue Shield files a motion to dismiss the SAC, the Court would vacate the initial case 

management conference set for August 16, 2016. [Dkt. No. 25.]

10. On July 18, 2016, Blue Shield filed its response supporting the Administrative 

Motion.

11. On July 21, 2016, Judge Orrick entered an order relating Barbor and Homampour. 

[Homampour Dkt. No. 36; Barbor Dkt. No. 26.] Barbor was therefore reassigned to Judge 

Orrick. Judge Orrick re-set the Barbor initial case management conference for August 16, 2016 at 

2:00 p.m. before Judge Orrick. [Dkt. No. 27.]

12. The Homampour motion to dismiss hearing is scheduled for August 10, 2016. 

13. The parties agree that, because Blue Shield intends to raise similar arguments in its 

motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s SAC as it has already raised in the pending motion to dismiss in the 

related case, Homampour, Blue Shield’s time to respond to Plaintiff’s SAC should be extended to 

30 days following the August 10, 2016 hearing on the Homampour motion to dismiss. The parties 

agree that the Court’s ruling on the Homampour motion to dismiss will inform Blue Shield’s 

response to Plaintiff’s SAC, and the extension will therefore serve judicial efficiency and avoid 

needless duplication of resources. Blue Shield’s time to move, answer, or otherwise respond to 

the SAC is therefore extended to and including September 9, 2016.

Case 3:16-cv-01773-WHO Document 30 Filed 07/27/16 Page 3 of 4
MANATT, PHELPS &

PHILLIPS, LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

LOS A NG EL ES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE INITIAL CMC AND TO EXTEND TIME FOR 

DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-01773-WHO

14. In the event the Court takes the Homampour motion to dismiss under submission 

and does not issue a ruling on the motion to dismiss on August 10, 2016, the parties agree that 

they may file a stipulation seeking a further extension of time for Blue Shield to respond to 

Plaintiff’s SAC. 

15. The parties also agree that the initial case management conference should be 

continued until after Blue Shield’s response deadline. The parties agree to continue the initial case 

management conference to Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., or a subsequent date 

convenient to the Court.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: July 26, 2016 KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP

By: /s/ Timothy J. Rozelle

Glenn R. Kantor

Timothy J. Rozelle

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ADRIANA BARBOR

Dated: July 26, 2016 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP

By: /s/ Leah R. Adams

Gregory N. Pimstone

John LeBlanc

Ileana M. Hernandez

Leah R. Adams

Attorneys for Defendant

CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE DBA 

BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2016 ___

Honorable William H. Orrick

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01773-WHO Document 30 Filed 07/27/16 Page 4 of 4