Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03288/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03288-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
General Electric Company
Defendant
J.R.W.
Plaintiff
Carol Ann Winnett
Plaintiff

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

K:\Injured\104460\fed\Stip stay or cont (WINNETT).wpd 1

JOINT MOTION AND STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT

DEADLINES – No.C06-3288 EDL

BRAYTON

 ̃PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

P O BOX 6169

NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685

DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., S.B. #154436

BRAYTON ̃PURCELL LLP 

Attorneys at Law

222 Rush Landing Road

P.O. Box 6169

Novato, California 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

(415) 898-1247 (Fax No.)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CAROL ANN WINNETT as Wrongful

Death Heir, and as Successor-in-Interest to

GEORGE WINNETT, Deceased; and

J.R.W., a minor, by and through his

Guardian Ad Litem, CAROL ANN

WINNETT, as Legal Heir of GEORGE

WINNETT, Deceased,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and

DOES 1-300,

Defendants.

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

No. C06-3288 EDL

JOINT MOTION AND STIPULATION TO

STAY PROCEEDING OR, IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, TO CONTINUE CASE

MANAGEMENT DEADLINE AND

CONFERENCE, AND TO EXTEND TIME;

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY;

[PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE] ORDER

TO CONTINUE

 Pursuant to Civil L. R. 7-11 and 7-12, the following parties hereby stipulate to, and

respectfully move the Court for, an Order extending time as set forth in the Case Management

Scheduling Order filed May 18, 2006 (Document 2), for the following good cause:

On July 6, 2006, Defendant GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY filed a Notice to Tag

Along Action regarding the pending Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) in the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania, seeking among other things, to move Jurisdiction of this matter to that District. 

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-03288-EDL Document 7 Filed 07/06/2006 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

K:\Injured\104460\fed\Stip stay or cont (WINNETT).wpd 2

JOINT MOTION AND STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT

DEADLINES – No.C06-3288 EDL

On July 29, 1991, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) entered an

order transferring all asbestos personal injury cases pending in the federal courts to the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, for coordinated pretrial

proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. That order also applies to “tag-along actions,” or

actions involving common questions of fact filed after January 17, 1991. Such actions are to be

transferred to the eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of MDL 875, for coordinated pretrial

proceedings. 

The JPML has held that a district court has the authority to stay pending a transfer order.

In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 170 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 1349 n.1 (J.P.M.L. 2001)

(“[T]hose courts concluding that such issues should be addressed by the transferee judge need

not rule on them, and the process of 1407 transfer in MDL-875 can continue without any

unnecessary interruption or delay.”)

The parties agree that it is likely that the JPML will transfer this matter to the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania.

However, to date, the Clerk of the JPML has not entered a Conditional Transfer Order

pursuant to JPML Rule 12(a) or filed an order to show cause why the action should not be

transferred, pursuant to JPML Rule 13(b). 

It is likely the dates set forth in the Case Management Scheduling Order filed May 18,

2006 (Document 2), including the deadlines imposed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26,

will come to pass before the Clerk of the JPML acts. 

The parties make this Motion on the grounds that a stay of this action would (a) promote

judicial efficiency, (b) allow consistency in pretrial rulings, and (c) be most convenient to the

parties. 

Due to the pending action by the Clerk of the JPML, the parties hereby STIPULATE to

and respectfully request the Court VACATE its Case Management Scheduling Order filed May

18, 2006 (Document 2) and that the Court issue an Order STAYING this action pending the

outcome of the MDL Panel’s decision on the merits of the transfer. 

//

Case 3:06-cv-03288-EDL Document 7 Filed 07/06/2006 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

K:\Injured\104460\fed\Stip stay or cont (WINNETT).wpd 3

JOINT MOTION AND STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT

DEADLINES – No.C06-3288 EDL

In the alternative, the parties hereby STIPULATE to and respectfully request that the

dates set forth in the Case Management Scheduling Order filed May 18, 2006 (Document 2),

vacated and continued pending the outcome of the JPML’s decision on the merits of the transfer. 

Specifically, these deadlines in this matter include the August 1, 2006 Rule 26 deadline to meet

and confer, and file Joint ADR Certification, the August 1, 2006 Deadline to complete Initial

Disclosures, the August 15, 2006 deadline to file the Joint Case Management Statement and the

Case Management Conference currently set for August 22, 2006. 

 Dated: June 29, 2006 BRAYTON ̃PURCELL LLP 

/s/ David R. Donadio 

By: ____________________

David R. Donadio

Attorneys for Plaintiff

 Dated: July 6, 2006 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN &

ARNOLD, LLP

 /s/ Damon McClain

By: ____________________

Damon McClain

Attorneys for Defendant 

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

 

 [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing date and deadlines specified in the

Case Management Scheduling Order filed May 18, 2006 (Document 2), are hereby VACATED

and that this action is STAYED pending the outcome of the JPML’s decision on the merits of the

transfer. 

Dated: _____________________

_____________________________ 

Elizabeth D. Laporte

United States Magistrate Court Judge

//

Case 3:06-cv-03288-EDL Document 7 Filed 07/06/2006 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

K:\Injured\104460\fed\Stip stay or cont (WINNETT).wpd 4

JOINT MOTION AND STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT

DEADLINES – No.C06-3288 EDL

[PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE] ORDER TO CONTINUE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing date and deadlines specified in the

Case Management Scheduling Order filed May 18, 2006 (Document 2), are hereby VACATED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following case management deadlines are

continued as follows: 

1. Last day to meet and confer re initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process

selection, and discovery plan is [set for a date on or after November 15, 2006 to wit:] 

__________, 2006;

2. Last day to file Joint ADR Certification with Stipulation to ADR process or

Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference is [set for a date after November 15, 2006 to wit:] 

__________, 2006;

3. Last day to complete initial disclosures or state objection to Rule 26(f) Report,

file/serve Case Management Statement and file/serve Rule 26(f) Report is [set for a date after

November 15, 2006 to wit:] ________________, 2006; and

4. The Case Management Conference is [set for a date after November 15, 2006 to 

wit: ] ___________________ 2006 at 10:00 a.m., Courtroom “E”, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate

Avenue, San Francisco, California.

Dated: _____________________

_____________________________ 

Elizabeth D. Laporte

United States Magistrate Court Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03288-EDL Document 7 Filed 07/06/2006 Page 4 of 4

November 28 November 28 December 12 December 19 July 20, 2006

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte