Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07174/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07174-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
General Electric Company
Defendant
Darlene Louise Wehr Stark
Plaintiff
Ann Wehr Starwas Tschann
Plaintiff
Dorothy Wehr
Plaintiff
Vincent Fredrick Wehr
Defendant
Robert Kenneth Wehr
Plaintiff
Kenneth Stanford Wehr II
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

K:\Injured\105083\Fed WD\Stip stay or cont (Wehr).wpd 1

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

DEADLINES – No. 06-7174-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

DOROTHY WEHR, Individually, as

Wrongful Death Heir, and as Successor-inInterest to KENNETH WEHR, Deceased;

and DARLENE LOUISE WEHR STARK,

SHARON ANN WEHR STARWAS

TSCHANN, ROBERT KENNETH

WEHR, VINCENT FREDRICK WEHR, 

KENNETH STANFORD WEHR II as

Legal Heirs of KENNETH WEHR,

Deceased,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,

and DOES 1-300,

Defendants.

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

No. 06-7174-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 November 20, 2006 (Document 2), for the following good cause:

On January 8, 2007, Defendant GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY filed a Notice to

Tag Along Action (Document 7) 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-07174-EDL Document 10 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 1 of 4 Case 3:06-cv-07174-EDL Document 11 Filed 01/16/07 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

K:\Injured\105083\Fed WD\Stip stay or cont (Wehr).wpd 2

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

DEADLINES – No. 06-7174-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, 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

November 20, 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-07174-EDL Document 10 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 2 of 4 Case 3:06-cv-07174-EDL Document 11 Filed 01/16/07 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

K:\Injured\105083\Fed WD\Stip stay or cont (Wehr).wpd 3

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

DEADLINES – No. 06-7174-EDL

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

dates set forth in the Case Management Scheduling Order filed November 20, 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 February 6, 2007 Rule 26

deadline to meet and confer, and file Joint ADR Certification, the February 20, 2007 Deadline

to complete Initial Disclosures, the February 20, 2007 deadline to file the Joint Case

Management Statement and the Case Management Conference currently set for February 27,

2007.

 Dated: January 11, 2007 BRAYTON{PURCELL LLP

/s/ David R. Donadio

By: ____________________

David R. Donadio

Attorneys for Plaintiff

 Dated: January 11, 2007 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN &

ARNOLD, LLP

 /s/ Derek Johnson 

By: ____________________

Derek Johnson

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 November 20, 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-07174-EDL Document 10 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 3 of 4

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

January 16, 2007

Case 3:06-cv-07174-EDL Document 11 Filed 01/16/07 Page 3 of 3