Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00718/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00718-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO STAY

Case No. C06-00718 SBA 

sf-2107197 

MELVIN R. GOLDMAN (CA SBN 34097) 

(MGoldman@mofo.com) 

LORI A. SCHECHTER (CA SBN 139728) 

(LSchechter@mofo.com) 

PAUL FLUM (CA SBN 104424) 

(PaulFlum@mofo.com) 

TIFFANY CHEUNG (CA SBN 211497) 

(TCheung@mofo.com) 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

Attorneys for Defendant 

MCKESSON CORPORATION, A DELAWARE 

CORPORATION 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 HEALTH & 

SECURITY PLAN, DON L. COLEMAN and 

MAUREEN COWIE, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

McKESSON CORPORATION, a Delaware 

corporation, 

Defendant. 

Case No. C06-00718 SBA 

ORDER GRANTING 

McKESSON’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS OR TO STAY 

Date: May 9, 2006 

Time: 1:00 p.m. 

Hon. Saundra B. Armstrong 

Case 4:06-cv-00718-SBA Document 24 Filed 05/11/06 Page 1 of 3
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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO STAY

sf-2107197 

1

Defendant McKesson Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss or to Stay came before the Court 

for hearing on May 9th, 2006, the parties being represented by their respective counsel. The Court 

being fully advised and having considered the Memoranda, Declarations, and Exhibits and other 

evidence submitted, the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED 

as follows: 

 Under the first-to file-rule, the Court has the authority to stay or dismiss an action when “a 

complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in another district.” 

Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court finds that 

this case was filed on February 1, 2006, after a similar action against McKesson Corporation was 

filed in the District of Massachusetts on June 2, 2005. “Exact parallelism between the two 

actions need not exist; it is enough if the parties and issues in the two actions are ‘substantially 

similar.’” Alioto v. Hoiles, No. C 04-1395 PJH, 2004 WL 2326367, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 

2004) (citing Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1416 (9th Cir. 1989)). Where each of these 

factors is present, the second-filed action should be dismissed or stayed. See, e.g., VISX, Inc. v. 

Garabet, No. C 00-3633 CRB, 2000 WL 1929328, at *2, *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2000) (dismissal 

without prejudice); N. Am. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Encompass Power Servs., Inc., No. Civ. 

S051587DFLGGH, 2005 WL 3453947, at *2-*3, *5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2005) (stay); 

Alibaba.com, Inc. v. Litecubes, Inc., No. C03-5574 MHP, 2004 WL 443712, at *2-*3 (N.D. Cal. 

March 8, 2004) (stay). 

 The Court finds that the parties to the two cases are substantially similar. Although the 

named plaintiffs are different in the two cases, the named plaintiffs are members of classes which 

are defined identically in the two actions and are therefore substantially similar. See Peak v. 

Green Tree Fin. Servicing Corp., No. C 00-0953 SC, 2000 WL 973685, at *2-*3 (N.D. Cal. July 

7, 2000). The presence of an additional defendant in the Massachusetts action does not render the 

actions dissimilar for the purposes of the first to file rule. See N. Am. Cas. Ins. Co., 2005 WL 

3453947, at *3 n.4. The court also finds that the issues in the two cases are substantially similar, 

resting on identical factual allegations and asserting identical or analogous causes of action 

Case 4:06-cv-00718-SBA Document 24 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 3
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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO STAY

sf-2107197 

2

against McKesson Corporation. See L. Cohen Group v. Herman Miller, Inc., C 05-4476 SI, 

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2301, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Jan, 18, 2006). 

Therefore, the Court ORDERS that this action is dismissed without prejudice under the 

first-to-file rule. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 11, 2006 

The Honorable Saundra B. Armstrong 

 United States District Judge 

Case 4:06-cv-00718-SBA Document 24 Filed 05/11/06 Page 3 of 3