Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01459/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01459-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT STEVENSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

OMNI FAMILY HEALTH,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01459-CDB

ORDER ON STIPULATION EXTENDING 

TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND

(Doc. 15)

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND

Relevant Background

On October 25, 2024, Plaintiffs Scott Stevenson and Marcos Montoya (“Plaintiffs”) 

initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on behalf of themselves and a putative class of 

others against Defendant Omni Family Health (“Defendant”) in the Superior Court of the State 

of California, Kern County, entitled Scott Stevenson, et al. v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 

BCV-24-103675. (Doc. 1). On November 29, 2024, Defendant removed the action to this Court. 

(Id.). 

On December 27, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a pending motion to remand the action to Kern 

County Superior Court. (Doc. 11). On January 3, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated 

request to extend time for Defendant to respond to the complaint to February 3, 2025, and 

vacated the scheduling conference set for March 3, 2025. (Doc. 13). On January 8, 2025, 

Case 1:24-cv-01459-JLT-CDB Document 18 Filed 01/13/25 Page 1 of 4
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

Defendant filed the Notice of Related Cases and identified as related several actions, including 

at the time 13 cases before this Court, eight cases before the Kern County Superior Court, and 

one case before the Fresno County Superior Court.1 (Doc. 14 at 1-3). Defendant therein advised 

it intends to remove all the state actions pending in the Superior Courts of California pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). (Id. at 3). Defendant attests that it has either been served or waived service 

in all the cases identified aside from three of the state actions. (Id.).

This action is one of several similar class action suits brought in or removed to this Court 

in which Plaintiffs assert similar claims against Defendant. See, e.g., Gober Villatoro Guerra v. 

Omni Family Health, No. 1:24-cv-01492-JLT-CDB (“Guerra”) (Doc. 6). In Guerra, the Court 

noted the class action complaints here and the other Omni actions allege substantially similar 

facts and nearly identical causes of action against Defendant. (Id. at 1-2) (“From review of the 

several complaints, it appears these actions arise from a recent, alleged cyberattack resulting in 

a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant 

(the “Data Breach”).” The Court ordered Defendant to file a Notice of Related Cases in 

accordance with Local Rule 123(b) in Guerra and the identified Omni Actions therein, including 

the instant action. (Id. at 3). The Court further ordered the parties in Guerra to show cause why 

this action should or should not be consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

42(a). (Id.). On December 27, 2024, Defendant filed the Notice of Related Cases and identified 

as related, inter alia, the instant action. (Guerra, Doc. 8); see (Doc. 14). 

On December 30, 2024, the parties in Guerra filed a joint status report in response to the 

Court’s show cause order. (Guerra, Doc. 9). Therein, Defendant represents it intends to file a 

motion to substitute the United States in the matter and all other related Omni matters. (Id. at 

1). The Guerra parties represent that they will file in the first filed of the Omni federal

actions – Ellen Pace v. Omni Family Health, No. 1:24-cv-01277-JLT-CDB (“Pace”) – a joint 

stipulation and proposed order consolidating and staying the Omni actions pending resolution of 

1 The Court notes two of the identified Omni actions were voluntarily dismissed. See Brandon 

Cubit v. Omni Family Health, No. 1:24-cv-01491-KES-CDB (Doc. 5) & Katarina Hernandez 

individually and as next friend on behalf of S.A. (minor) v. Omni Family Health, Superior Court of 

the State of California, County of Kern, Case No. BCV-24-103697 (dismissed on Dec. 23, 2024).

Case 1:24-cv-01459-JLT-CDB Document 18 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 4
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

the earlier of Defendant’s forthcoming motion to substitute or motions to remand in the instant 

action (Doc. 11) as well as Abraham, et al. v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01456-

JLT-CDB (“Abraham”) (Abraham, Doc. 7). (Id. at 2). 

On January 9, 2025, the parties filed in the Pace action the joint stipulated request for 

consolidating and staying the Omni actions (“Consolidation Stipulation”). (Pace, Doc. 9).

Pending Stipulated Request

Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request to extend Defendant’s time to 

oppose the pending motion to remand to February 14, 2025, filed on January 9, 2025. (Doc. 15). 

The parties represent that on January 9, 2025, the parties filed the pending Consolidation 

Stipulation in the Pace action. (Id. ¶ 8); see (Pace, Doc. 9). The parties represent that the 

Consolidation Stipulation, among other things, proposes: (1) the consolidation of the federal 

court Omni actions identified in the Notice of Related Cases (Doc. 14) (collectively, the “Federal 

Court Actions”); (2) completion of the briefing on the pending motion to remand (Doc. 11); and 

(3) a briefing schedule on the remand motion, which includes a deadline of February 14, 2025, 

for the filing of Defendant’s opposition to the remand motion. (Id.). The parties represent that 

consistent with the Consolidation Stipulation, the parties agree, subject to the Court’s approval, 

to extend Defendant’s time to oppose the pending motion to remand in the instant action to 

February 14, 2025, to allow for the entry of the Consolidation Stipulation. (Doc. 12 ¶ 9). The 

parties represent that good cause exists in the efficiencies in allowing time for consolidation and 

consolidated briefing on the issue of remand. (Id. ¶ 10).

Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Case 1:24-cv-01459-JLT-CDB Document 18 Filed 01/13/25 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendant shall have until February 14, 2025, to file its opposition to the pending 

motion to remand (Doc. 11). See Local Rule 144(a).

2. The hearing on Plaintiffs’ pending motion to remand is hereby VACATED. See 

Local Rule 230(k) & 302(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2025 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01459-JLT-CDB Document 18 Filed 01/13/25 Page 4 of 4