Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01456/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01456-0/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 

COMPLAINT

(Doc. 9)

ORDER VACATING MARCH 3, 2025, 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

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 is set for hearing on February 3, 2025. (Doc. 7).

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

Case 1:24-cv-01456-JLT-CDB Document 10 Filed 01/02/25 Page 1 of 3
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

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 at ¶ 4). 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 – 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). 

Pending Stipulated Request

Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request to extend by 30 additional days 

the time for Defendant to respond to the complaint, through and including February 3, 2025. 

(Doc. 9). The parties represent the requested extension will allow time for other federal court 

actions filed against Defendant to be consolidated and for the Court to rule on Defendant’s 

forthcoming motion to substitute the United States in this case as a defendant pursuant to the 

Federal Tort Claims Act, 42 U.S.C. § 233, as well as the Plaintiffs’ pending motion to remand 

Case 1:24-cv-01456-JLT-CDB Document 10 Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 3
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

(Doc. 7). (Id.). The parties represent that good cause exists to grant the requested extension in 

the efficiencies from allowing consolidation to occur and ruling on the pending motions to 

substitute and to remand. (Id.).

Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendant shall have until February 3, 2025, to respond to the complaint by filing 

an answer or other responsive pleading. See Local Rule 144(a).

2. And it is FURTHER ORDERED that the scheduling conference set for March 3, 

2025 (Doc. 4) is VACATED to be reset as necessary following the ruling on the 

pending motion to remand (Doc. 7) and resolution of the issue of consolidation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2025 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01456-JLT-CDB Document 10 Filed 01/02/25 Page 3 of 3