Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01456/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01456-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Samantha Abraham
Plaintiff
Brian Cihal
Plaintiff
Naomi Gaxiola
Plaintiff
Omni Family Health
Defendant

Document Text:

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

SAMANTHA ABRAHAM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

OMNI FAMILY HEALTH,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01456-JLT-CDB

ORDER ON STIPULATION EXTENDING 

TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND

(Doc. 12)

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND

Relevant Background

On October 23, 2024, Plaintiffs Samantha Abraham, Naomi Gaxiola, and Brian Cihal

(collectively, “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, Case No. BCV-24-103623. (Doc. 

1). On November 29, 2024, Defendant removed the action to this Court. (Id.). On December 

3, 2024, the parties stipulated pursuant to Local Rule 144(a) to extend by 28 days the time for 

Defendant to respond to the complaint, up to and including January 3, 2025. (Doc. 5). On 

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

Superior Court that was improperly noticed for hearing before the assigned magistrate judge 

instead of the presiding district judge on February 3, 2025. (Docs. 7, 8); see Local Rule 230(k), 

Case 1:24-cv-01456-JLT-CDB Document 14 Filed 01/10/25 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

302(c). On January 2, 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. 10). On January 8, 2025, 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. 11 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. 11). 

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 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-01456-JLT-CDB Document 14 Filed 01/10/25 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

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 

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

action (Doc. 7) as well as Scott Stevenson and Marcos Mantoya v. Omni Family Health, No. 

1:24-cv-01459-CDB (“Stevenson”) (Stevenson, Doc. 11). (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. 12). 

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. 11) (collectively, the “Federal 

Court Actions”); (2) completion of the briefing on the pending motion to remand filed in the 

Stevenson action (Stevenson, Doc. 11), a decision on which will apply to all of the related cases 

(“Stevenson remand motion”); and (3) a briefing schedule on the Stevenson remand motion, 

which includes a deadline of February 14, 2025, for the filing of Defendant’s opposition to the 

Stevenson 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).

///

///

///

Case 1:24-cv-01456-JLT-CDB Document 14 Filed 01/10/25 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. 7). See Local Rule 144(a).

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

230(k), 302(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2025 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01456-JLT-CDB Document 14 Filed 01/10/25 Page 4 of 4