Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06972/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06972-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS –

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06972-JST (AND CONSOLIDATED AND/OR RELATED ACTIONS)

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

Steve W. Berman (admitted pro hac vice)

steve@hbsslaw.com

Anne F. Johnson (admitted pro hac vice)

annej@hbsslaw.com

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000

Seattle, WA 98101

Tel: (206) 623-7292

Fax: (206) 623-0594

Attorneys for the Holley and Rivers Plaintiffs

Debra E. Pole (Bar No. 97816)

dpole@sidley.com

Joshua Anderson (Bar No. 211320)

janderson@sidley.com

Alycia A. Degen (Bar No. 211350)

adegen@sidley.com

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000

Los Angeles, CA 90013

Tel: (213) 896-6000

Fax: (213) 896-6600

Attorneys for Defendant Gilead Sciences, Inc.

[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIAN HOLLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:18-cv-06972-JST

JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS

ADRIAN L. RIVERS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:19-cv-07991-JST

JOINT STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS

Case 4:18-cv-06972-JST Document 159 Filed 01/15/20 Page 1 of 8
1

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS –

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06972-JST (AND CONSOLIDATED AND/OR RELATED ACTIONS)

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

JOINT STIPULATION

Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-12, Plaintiffs in the abovecaptioned actions and Defendant Gilead Sciences, Inc. (“Gilead”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by 

and through their respective undersigned counsel of record, submit the following Stipulation and 

Proposed Order:

WHEREAS, on February 27, 2019, Gilead filed its motion to dismiss in the actions entitled 

Holley et al. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., No. 4:18-cv-06972-JST (“Holley”), and Dowdy et al. v. Gilead 

Sciences, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-00481-JST (“Dowdy”) (ECF No. 45);

WHEREAS, on May 10, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Gilead’s motion 

to dismiss in Holley and Dowdy (ECF No. 75) (“May 10 Order”);

WHEREAS, the Court’s May 10 Order stated that: “Plaintiffs’ opposition makes clear that 

they are not pursuing claims that Gilead should have pursued a different drug composition after 

approval.” (see ECF No. 75 at 13 n.6);

WHEREAS, on May 10, 2019, 127 additional plaintiffs filed suit against Gilead in the action 

entitled Lyons et al. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-02538-JST (“Lyons”);

WHEREAS, on May 31, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint for 

Damages (ECF No. 84) (“FAC”), including the claims of all plaintiffs from the Holley, Dowdy, and 

Lyons actions, under Holley as the lead case;

WHEREAS, on July 10, 2019, Gilead filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ FAC for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (ECF No. 91), and a 

motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ FAC under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 9(b), and 12(b)(6) 

(ECF No. 92);

WHEREAS, on October 16, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Gilead’s 

motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ FAC (ECF No. 123) (“October 16 Order”);

WHEREAS, the Court’s October 16 Order: (1) severed and dismissed the claims of 16 

California plaintiffs in order to perfect diversity jurisdiction; (2) dismissed “without leave to amend, 

but without prejudice to any future motion to amend on a showing of good cause,” plaintiffs’ fraud 

Case 4:18-cv-06972-JST Document 159 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 8
2

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS –

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06972-JST (AND CONSOLIDATED AND/OR RELATED ACTIONS)

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

and consumer protection claims “to the extent they rely on allegations of affirmative 

misrepresentations rather than omissions”; and (3) dismissed without leave to amend, but without 

prejudice to any future motion to amend on a showing of good cause, “[p]laintiffs’ post-approval, 

post-July 2012 failure-to-warn claims.” (ECF No. 123 at 12);

WHEREAS, on December 5, 2019, 30 additional plaintiffs filed suit against Gilead in the 

action entitled Rivers et al. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-07991-JST (“Rivers”);

WHEREAS, on December 16, 2019, the Court found that the Rivers action is related to the 

Holley action (ECF No. 144);

WHEREAS, on January 10, 2020, the Court consolidated the Rivers action with the Holley 

action for pretrial purposes (ECF No. 157);

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that, for purposes of appeal, or for any other purposes, the 

briefs and supporting papers, together with the oral argument, regarding Gilead’s above-described 

motions to dismiss and the Court’s orders on those motions shall be treated as having been filed and 

entered in the Rivers action;

WHEREAS, the Rivers plaintiffs agree they are not asserting claims that Gilead should have 

changed the design of its FDA-approved TDF medications after the FDA approved the TDF 

medications;

WHEREAS, by stipulating to the foregoing, the Rivers plaintiffs do not intend to limit, in any 

way, their claims that Gilead should have changed the design of its TDF medications before FDA 

approval;

WHEREAS, the Rivers plaintiffs agree, without prejudice to any future motion to amend on a 

showing of good cause, to the dismissal of their (1) fraud and consumer protection claims to the 

extent they rely on allegations of affirmative misrepresentations and (2) post-approval, post-July 

2012 failure-to-warn claims (see ECF No. 123 at 12); and

WHEREAS, by stipulating to the foregoing, the Parties do not intend to waive any right to

discovery or to appeal from the decisions of the Court discussed herein;

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the Parties, through their 

Case 4:18-cv-06972-JST Document 159 Filed 01/15/20 Page 3 of 8
3

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS –

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06972-JST (AND CONSOLIDATED AND/OR RELATED ACTIONS)

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

respective undersigned counsel of record, and pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, that:

1. The briefs and supporting papers, together with the oral argument, regarding Gilead’s 

motions to dismiss in the Holley and Dowdy actions and the Court’s orders on those 

motions shall be treated as having been filed and entered in the Rivers action.

2. Plaintiffs in the Rivers action are not asserting claims that Gilead should have 

changed the design of its FDA-approved TDF medications after the FDA approved 

the TDF medications.

3. Any fraud and consumer protection claims that rely on allegations of affirmative 

misrepresentations, rather than omissions, are dismissed from the Rivers action

without leave to amend, but without prejudice to any future motion to amend on a 

showing of good cause.

4. Any post-approval, post-July 2012 failure-to-warn claims are dismissed from the 

Rivers action without leave to amend, but without prejudice to any future motion to 

amend on a showing of good cause.

5. Nothing herein is intended to or constitutes a waiver of any Party’s discovery or 

appellate rights.

Dated this 14th day of January, 2020

Stipulated and agreed to by:

Case 4:18-cv-06972-JST Document 159 Filed 01/15/20 Page 4 of 8
4

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS –

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06972-JST (AND CONSOLIDATED AND/OR RELATED ACTIONS)

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

Dated: January 14, 2020 By: /s/ Steve W. Berman

Steve W. Berman (admitted pro hac vice)

steve@hbsslaw.com

Anne F. Johnson (admitted pro hac vice)

annej@hbsslaw.com

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000

Seattle, WA 98101

Tel: (206) 623-7292

Fax: (206) 623-0594

Shana E. Scarlett (SBN 217895)

shanas@hbsslaw.com

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202

Berkeley, CA 94710

Tel: (510) 725-3000

Fax: (510) 725-3001

Robert C. Hilliard (admitted pro hac vice)

bobh@hmglawfirm.com

Katrina Ashley (admitted pro hac vice)

kashley@hmglawfirm.com

HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP

719 S. Shoreline Blvd.

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

Tel: (361) 882-1612

Fax: (361) 882-3015

Attorneys for the Holley and Mosely Plaintiffs

Dated: January 14, 2020 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

By: /s/ Joshua Anderson

Debra E. Pole (Bar No. 97816)

dpole@sidley.com

Joshua Anderson (Bar No. 211320)

janderson@sidley.com

Alycia A. Degen (Bar No. 211350)

adegen@sidley.com

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

555 West Fifth Street

Los Angeles, CA 90013

Tel: (213) 896-6000

Fax: (213) 896-6600

Daniel A. Spira (admitted pro hac vice)

dspira@sidley.com

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

One South Dearborn

Chicago, IL 60603

Tel: (312) 853-7000

Case 4:18-cv-06972-JST Document 159 Filed 01/15/20 Page 5 of 8
5

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS –

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06972-JST (AND CONSOLIDATED AND/OR RELATED ACTIONS)

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

Inn-Young Park (Bar No. 324129)

ipark@sidley.com

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

555 California St., Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94104

Tel: (415) 772-1200

Attorneys for Defendant Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Case 4:18-cv-06972-JST Document 159 Filed 01/15/20 Page 6 of 8
6

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS –

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06972-JST (AND CONSOLIDATED AND/OR RELATED ACTIONS)

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

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3)

I am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file the foregoing 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Dismissal of Claims. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-

1(i)(3), I hereby attest that the other signatories have concurred in this filing.

Dated: January 14, 2020 By: /s/ Joshua Anderson

Joshua Anderson

Case 4:18-cv-06972-JST Document 159 Filed 01/15/20 Page 7 of 8
7 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS – 

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06972-JST (AND CONSOLIDATED AND/OR RELATED ACTIONS) 

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

Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, it is hereby 

ORDERED as follows:

1. The above stipulation is GRANTED.

2. The briefs and supporting papers, together with the oral argument, regarding

Gilead’s motions to dismiss in the Holley and Dowdy actions and the Court’s orders

on those motions shall be treated as having been filed and entered in the Rivers

action.

3. Plaintiffs in the Rivers action are not asserting claims that Gilead should have

changed the design of its FDA-approved TDF medications after the FDA approved

the TDF medications.

4. Any fraud and consumer protection claims that rely on allegations of affirmative

misrepresentations, rather than omissions, are dismissed from the Rivers action

without leave to amend, but without prejudice to any future motion to amend on a

showing of good cause.

5. Any post-approval, post-July 2012 failure-to-warn claims are dismissed from the

Rivers action without leave to amend, but without prejudice to any future motion to

amend on a showing of good cause.

6. Nothing herein is intended to or constitutes a waiver of any Party’s discovery or

appellate rights.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: __________________, 2020 _________________________________

Honorable Jon S. Tigar

January 15

Case 4:18-cv-06972-JST Document 159 Filed 01/15/20 Page 8 of 8