Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03107/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03107-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

- 1 - C 07-03107 PJH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DATES SET FORTH IN THE COURT’S 

NOVEMBER 15, 2007 SCHEDULING ORDER SETTING HEARING DATES AND OTHER DEADLINES

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 

Anthony G. Brazil, State Bar No. 84297 

David J. Vendler, State Bar No. 146528 

Megan S. Wynne, State Bar No. 183707 

MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP

1055 West Seventh Street, 24th Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90017 

Telephone: (213) 891-9100 

Facsimile: (213) 488-1178 

E-Mail: abrazil@mpplaw.com 

E-Mail: mwynne@mpplaw.com 

E-Mail: dvendler@mpplaw.com 

Attorneys for Defendant, 

ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXIS DEGELMANN and 

JOSEPH LIN, on behalf of 

themselves and all those similarly 

situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, 

INC., a Delaware corporation, 

 Defendant. 

 CASE NO.: C-07-3107-PJH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO STAY ENTIRE CASE 

AND CONTINUE ALL DATES 

PENDING DETERMINATION BY 

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT OF 

THE IN RE TOBACCO II CASES 

Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton 

Pursuant to Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Defendant ADVANCED MEDICAL 

OPTICS, INC. (hereafter “AMO”) and Plaintiffs ALEXIS DEGELMANN 

(“DEGELMANN”) and JOSEPH LIN (“LIN”) hereby stipulate and agree to stay the 

entire case and to indefinitely continue all of the pending hearing dates and deadlines 

set forth in the Court’s February 7, 2008 Scheduling Order until after the California 

Case 4:07-cv-03107-PJH Document 56 Filed 03/14/08 Page 1 of 6
- 2 - C 07-03107 PJH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DATES SET FORTH IN THE COURT’S 

NOVEMBER 15, 2007 SCHEDULING ORDER SETTING HEARING DATES AND OTHER DEADLINES

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 

Supreme Court issues its opinion in the In re Tobacco II Cases (S147345), 146 P.3d 

1250, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 707 (2006). 

The reasons for staying the case and continuing the hearing dates and deadlines 

in this case are that the parties agree that the questions of law that are currently 

pending before California Supreme Court have a substantial likelihood of having a 

significant impact upon the law that will ultimately govern the issues raised by the 

Plaintiffs herein. The issues that are currently before the Supreme Court in In re 

Tobacco II are whether: (1) in order to bring a class action under CA. Bus. & Prof. 

Code, section 17200 et seq., as amended by Proposition 64, every member of the 

proposed class must have suffered "injury in fact," or whether it is sufficient that only 

the class representative comply with that requirement; and (2) in a class action based 

on a manufacturer's alleged misrepresentation of a product, must every member of the 

class have actually relied on the manufacturer's representations? 

The issues before the California Supreme Court directly impact this lawsuit, 

which was the first nationwide class action lawsuit challenging AMO’s business 

practices in advertising and marketing a contact lens eye product known as 

COMPLETE Moisture Plus Multi-Purpose Solution (“CMP”). In their Complaint, 

Plaintiffs allege that AMO violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (California 

Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500) by not only failing to 

disclose that CMP is inferior to other solutions in destroying acanthamoeba keratitis 

and other contaminants, but also leading consumers to believe that the product was as 

effective, if not more effective, than other multi-purpose contact solutions. Plaintiffs 

seek restitutionary and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly 

situated individuals throughout the United States who have purchased the product 

during the period of June 13, 2003, through the present. 

AMO denies these allegations and contends, inter alia, that pursuant to 

Proposition 64, Plaintiffs have suffered no “injury in fact” and thus have no standing to 

bring their lawsuit under California’s Unfair Competition Law because the defect 

Case 4:07-cv-03107-PJH Document 56 Filed 03/14/08 Page 2 of 6
- 3 - C 07-03107 PJH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DATES SET FORTH IN THE COURT’S 

NOVEMBER 15, 2007 SCHEDULING ORDER SETTING HEARING DATES AND OTHER DEADLINES

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 

Plaintiffs allege exists with the product never manifested itself in them, i.e. the 

Plaintiffs received exactly what they paid for, a single-step no-rub contact lens 

treatment which they used with no negative consequences. AMO also contends that 

even if the named plaintiffs were found to have standing to bring their claims, class 

treatment would be inappropriate because Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate class-wide 

reliance. 

 As this Court will recall, the existence of the In re Tobacco II case and the 

potential relevance of the issues to be decided therein was raised in the parties’ Joint 

Case Management Statement (Document No. 40). Since that time, the parties have 

engaged in discovery in preparation for the early motion for summary judgment that 

this Court allowed AMO to bring. In doing that discovery, it has become clear that it 

will be much more economical, especially given that this case is framed as a nationwide class action, to await whatever guidance comes from the California Supreme 

Court’s decision prior to continued litigation of this case, including, inter alia

discovery and motion practice (each side has already filed one discovery-related 

motion), summary judgment motions, and potentially, a nation-wide notice to the 

putative class. 

As such, the parties request the Court stay this action until the California 

Supreme Court renders its decision in the In Re Tobacco II Cases. Federal district 

courts, including the Northern District of California, have refused to adjudicate claims 

under California’s Unfair Competition law until after the California Supreme Court 

issues its decision. See, e.g., Faigman v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2007 WL 2088561, at 

*6 n.8 (N.D.Cal. July 18, 2007) (“As the state’s highest court is in the process of 

deciding this question [whether actual reliance is required to plead a cause of action 

under the Unfair Competition Law or False Advertising Law], it would be imprudent 

for the court to reach the issue at this time.”); Suzuki v. Hitachi Global Storage Techn. 

Inc., 2007 WL 2070263, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2007) (reserving judgment on false 

Case 4:07-cv-03107-PJH Document 56 Filed 03/14/08 Page 3 of 6
- 4 - C 07-03107 PJH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DATES SET FORTH IN THE COURT’S 

NOVEMBER 15, 2007 SCHEDULING ORDER SETTING HEARING DATES AND OTHER DEADLINES

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 

advertising claim given California Supreme Court’s granting of review in In Re 

Tobacco II Cases). 

While there is, of course, no way to determine exactly when the California 

Supreme Court will render its decision, the parties do not anticipate that the stay will 

last more than one year (and it could well be much sooner). Briefing is entirely closed 

in the California Supreme Court. All that awaits now is the setting of oral argument 

and the issuance of a decision. 

In the interim, AMO agrees to inform this Court and Plaintiffs in the event that 

another national class action lawsuit is filed, or a proposal is made to treat any state 

class lawsuits in a way that would impact this case. In addition, the parties reserve the 

right to apply to lift the stay for any reason before the California Supreme Court issues 

its opinion in the In Re Tobacco II Cases. 

The parties further propose that within 30 days of the issuance of the decision in 

the In Re Tobacco II Cases, they will notify the Court and request that a new Case 

Management Conference be set at the Court’s earliest convenience. At that time, 

unless the decision of the California Supreme Court is obviously dispositive of the 

entire case, the parties will request that the various motion hearing dates and deadlines 

set forth in the Court’s February 7, 2008 Scheduling Order be reset following the same 

general time-frames set forth in that order. 

 There have been four prior stipulations to extend time in this matter between the 

parties. The prior stipulations extended the time for AMO to respond to Plaintiffs’ 

complaint, extended the time for the parties to conduct their initial Case Management 

Conference with the Court and extended the time for the Court to hear AMO’s 

previously filed motion to strike, the Court allowed the parties stipulation continuing 

all pending dates on February 7, 2008, and most recently, Magistrate Judge Larson 

extended the hearing on AMO’s motion for protective order to allow the parties to 

submit the within stipulation to the Court. 

 

Case 4:07-cv-03107-PJH Document 56 Filed 03/14/08 Page 4 of 6
- 5 - C 07-03107 PJH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DATES SET FORTH IN THE COURT’S 

NOVEMBER 15, 2007 SCHEDULING ORDER SETTING HEARING DATES AND OTHER DEADLINES

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 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: March 14, 2008 MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP

By: ___________/s/______________

 Anthony G. Brazil 

 David J. Vendler 

 Megan W. Wynne 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC. 

Dated: March 14, 2008 MOSCONE, EMBLIDGE, & QUADRA, LLP

By: ___________/s/______________

James A. Quadra 

Sylvia M. Sokol 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs ALEXIS DEGELMANN 

and JOSEPH LIN 

Dated: March 14, 2008 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMAN & 

BERNSTEIN, LLP

 

By: ___________/s/______________

 Wendy Fleishman 

Attorney for Plaintiffs ALEXIS DEGELMANN 

and JOSEPH LIN 

Case 4:07-cv-03107-PJH Document 56 Filed 03/14/08 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - C 07-03107 PJH 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DATES SET FORTH IN THE COURT’S 

NOVEMBER 15, 2007 SCHEDULING ORDER SETTING HEARING DATES AND OTHER DEADLINES

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 

PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: 

Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton 

U.S. District Court Judge 

March 14, 2008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

All previously scheduled dates are vacated. 

Parties shall submit a status statement every 

three (3) months. 

Case 4:07-cv-03107-PJH Document 56 Filed 03/14/08 Page 6 of 6