Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05918/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05918-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER JAY GERBER, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BAYER CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-05918 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

JANUARY 11, 2008, AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available

at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit

the citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil

Local Rule 7-3(d). To the extent parties submit additional authorities, they are required to

provide such citations with pin cites. The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument

to explain their reliance on such authority. 

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-05918-JSW Document 50 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The parties each shall have fifteen (15) minutes to address the following questions:

(1) Assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs’ claims are not time barred and that Plaintiffs

provided sufficient notice, do McKesson Corporation and Merry X-Ray

Chemical Corporation (collectively, the “Distributor Defendants”) contend that

Plaintiffs failed to allege a claim under California Civil Code section 1750 et

seq., the Consumers Legal Remedy Act? If so, on what basis?

(2) Is the issue of fraudulent joinder pending in any other lawsuit subject to the

motion to transfer to the MDL? 

(3) What issues, if any, in the motion to remand in the lawsuit currently pending in

the Western District of Louisiana are similar to the motion to remand before this

Court? 

(4) The newspaper article attached as Exhibit B to the declaration of Deborah C.

Prosser quotes an attorney from Plaintiffs’ counsel’s firm, stating that it has

seven other clients who have been diagnosed with nephrogenic system fibrosis. 

Is this statement accurate? If so, has Levin Simes Kaiser & Gornick filed any

cases on behalf of these other clients and are any of the Facility or Distributor

Defendants in the above-captioned matter defendants in these cases? 

(5) Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: January 9, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05918-JSW Document 50 Filed 01/09/08 Page 2 of 2