Jeff Jonah v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03243

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Jeff Jonah, Kimberly-Clark Worldwide Inc, et al. Modified on 8/10/2018

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

4 1 GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP ADAM J. GUTRIDE (State Bar No. 181446) 2 SETH A. SAFIER (State Bar No. 197427) MARIE A. MCCRARY (State Bar No. 262670) 3 KRISTEN SIMPLICIO (State Bar No. 263291) 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 4 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 336-6545 5 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 6 TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP HASSAN ZAVAREEI 7 ANDREW JONATHAN SILVER 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 8 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 417-3658 9 SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP 10 STUART E. SCOTT 1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700 11 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-3232 12 Facsimile: (216) 696-3924 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 OAKLAND DIVISION 16 JENNIFER DAVIDSON and JEFF JONAH, Case Nos. 14-cv-01783-PJH (lead) 17 individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and 15-cv-03243-PJH (consolidated) and those similarly situated, 18 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT Plaintiffs, STATEMENT 19 v. Date: August 16, 2018 20 Time: 2:00 p.m. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, ET AL., Place: Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor 21 Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; CASE NOS. 14-CV-01783-PJH AND 15-CV-03243-PJH 4 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 16-9 and this Court's orders, Plaintiffs Jennifer Davidson and Jeff 2 Jonah and Defendants Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., and 3 Kimberly-Clark Global Sales LLC, respectfully submit the following joint case management 4 conference statement.1 5 1. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE 6 Plaintiffs contend that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 7 1332 of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). At this time, and based on Plaintiffs' 8 allegations, Defendants do not challenge Plaintiffs' assertion that this Court has subject matter 9 jurisdiction over this action pursuant to CAFA. 10 No parties remain to be served. 11 2. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 12 Plaintiffs' Statement 13 Defendants manufacture pre-moistened wipes that can be used for personal hygiene, child 14 care, pet care, or cleaning. Among these products are four brands of wipes that Defendants tout as 15 "FLUSHABLE" – Kleenex® Cottonelle® Fresh Care Flushable Wipes & Cleansing Cloths, Scott 16 Naturals® Flushable Moist Wipes, Huggies® Pull-Ups® Flushable Moist Wipes, and U by 17 Kotex® Refresh flushable wipes (collectively, the "Wipes"). Plaintiffs allege that the Wipes are 18 not flushable, as they are not suitable for disposal by flushing down a toilet, because the Wipes do 19 not disperse in water. As a result, the Wipes risk damage to household pipes and cause havoc at 20 municipal sewage treatment facilities. Plaintiffs further allege that, had Defendants not falsely 21 advertised the Wipes, they would never have purchased them but instead would have paid less for 22 regular, non-"flushable" wipes. Plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of 23 similarly situated California consumers, for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law 24 ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et. seq.; False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & 25 1 Defendants contend that Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. are 26 neither necessary nor proper parties to this suit and that Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC is the sole proper party to the action. Defendants submit this statement for all Defendants while 27 maintaining that Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC is the sole proper party to the action. 28 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; CASE NOS. 14-CV-01783-PJH AND 15-CV-03243-PJH 4 1 Prof. Code §§ 17500 et. seq.; Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 2 et. seq.; and for common law fraud. 3 Davidson filed her original complaint on March 13, 2014. (Davidson case, Dkt. 1.) The 4 Court dismissed Davidson's First Amended Complaint on December 9, 2014. (Id., Dkt. 44.) 5 Davidson appealed. (Id., Dkt. 55.) 6 Jonah filed his original complaint on June 9, 2015. (Jonah case, Dkt. 1.) On July 22, 2015, 7 the Jonah case was deemed related to the Davidson case. (Id., Dkt. 16.) Jonah and the Defendants 8 agreed to stay the Jonah case pending resolution of Davidson's appeal. (Id., Dkt. 29-30.) 9 On October 20, 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of Davidson's First 10 Amended Complaint and remanded. 11 A Rule 26(f) conference was held in the Davidson case prior to dismissal. The parties 12 agreed that they do not need to conduct a new Rule 26(f) conference for the Jonah case. 13 Defendants' Statement 14 Defendants dispute the above factual assertions and deny the legal conclusions set forth. 15 Defendants deny that the labeling of Wipes (as defined above) was false or misleading and further 16 deny that Plaintiffs have suffered any injury or are entitled to any relief whatsoever. 17 3. LEGAL ISSUES: DISPUTED POINTS OF LAW 18 Plaintiffs' Statement 19 Plaintiffs allege on behalf of a putative class of consumers that Defendants' marketing 20 and sale of the Wipes violates the UCL, FAL, CLRA, and constitutes common law fraud and 21 negligent misrepresentation. 22 Plaintiffs do not agree with Defendants' framing of the disputed issues below. For 23 example, Plaintiffs do not allege that reasonable consumers understand the term "flushable" to 24 mean solely that a product must disperse in water like toilet paper as Defendants suggest below. 25 Nor do Plaintiffs seek monetary, injunctive, or other relief based solely on damage purportedly 26 caused to municipalities by the flushing of Wipes. Further, Plaintiffs dispute that resolution of 27 any of the issues as framed by Defendants below ris relevant to or dispositive of any of 28 2 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; CASE NOS. 14-CV-01783-PJH AND 15-CV-03243-PJH 4 1 Plaintiffs' legal claims. 2 Defendants' Statement 3 Defendants have identified the following principal disputed legal issues: 4 a) Whether reasonable consumers uniformly understand the term "flushable" to mean 5 solely that a product must disperse in water like toilet paper; 6 b) Whether an expectation by a consumer that Wipes would disperse in water like 7 toilet paper is reasonable in light of the disclaimers, the actual Wipes themselves, 8 and common knowledge; 9 c) Whether Defendants had a legal duty to disclose that Wipes would not disperse in 10 water like toilet paper in light of the disclaimers on the product packaging, the 11 actual Wipes themselves, and common knowledge; 12 d) Whether consumers who purchased and flushed Wipes but did not experience any 13 plumbing damage are entitled to restitution or monetary damages; and 14 e) Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to any monetary, injunctive, or other relief based 15 solely on damage purportedly caused to municipalities by the flushing of Wipes. 16 4. MOTIONS 17 Plaintiffs' Statement 18 Plaintiffs anticipate filing a motion for class certification. Additionally, although Plaintiffs 19 are hopeful that the Parties will be able to resolve all future discovery disputes without the 20 assistance of this Court, disagreements about discovery are common in complex matters, and 21 Plaintiffs may need to seek guidance on the scope or timing of that discovery. Plaintiffs reserve 22 the right to file other motions as appropriate, including a motion for summary judgment (or 23 partial summary judgment), and pretrial motions including motions in limine. 24 Defendants' Statement 25 Plaintiffs filed the Jonah case after judgment was entered in the Davidson case and 26 Davidson's motion to alter or amend the judgment was denied. (Davidson case, Dkt. 54.) On 27 July 13, 2015, Defendants removed the Jonah action to federal court. (Jonah case, Dkt. 1.) On 28 3 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; CASE NOS. 14-CV-01783-PJH AND 15-CV-03243-PJH 4 1 July 20, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and motion to strike the original complaint. 2 (Id., Dkt. 12.) In response, Jonah filed an amended complaint. (Id., Dkt. 24.) On September 2, 3 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and motion to strike the amended complaint. (Id., 4 Dkt. 27.) On September 15, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation to stay the Jonah action pending 5 the appeal in the Davidson case. Defendants intend to withdraw the pending motion to dismiss 6 and motion to strike and file an answer by the time of the Scheduling Conference. 7 Defendants may also file a motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication as to 8 Plaintiffs' individual claims. 9 5. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS AND ADDITION OF PARTIES 10 Plaintiffs' Statement 11 Plaintiff Davidson filed her First Amended Complaint on September 5, 2014. Plaintiff 12 Jonah filed his First Amended Complaint on August 3, 2015. On July 22, 2015, the Jonah case 13 was deemed related to the Davidson case and assigned to the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton 14 pursuant to Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11. On September 17, 2015, the court stayed the Jonah action 15 pending resolution of Davidson's appeal. 16 Now that the appeal has been resolved and the stay has been lifted, Plaintiffs may seek 17 leave of court to file a single consolidated complaint. Further, as this is a class action, additional 18 plaintiffs may seek to intervene. 19 Defendants' Statement 20 As stated above, Defendants intend to file an answer in Jonah which will include their 21 affirmative defenses. Defendants request that to the extent Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the 22 complaints for any reason, that the Plaintiffs be required to do so by September 1, 2018. 23 Defendants reserve the right to oppose any leave requested by Plaintiffs to amend their complaint 24 and to challenge any claims asserted in any consolidated complaint and in any further amended 25 complaint that Plaintiffs may be permitted to file. 26 27 28 4 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; CASE NOS. 14-CV-01783-PJH AND 15-CV-03243-PJH 4 1 6. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION 2 The Parties have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the Discovery of Electronically 3 Stored Information ("ESI Guidelines"), and have met and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 26(f) regarding reasonable and proportionate steps taken to preserve evidence relevant to the 5 issues reasonably evident in this action. The Parties will continue to discuss whether and to what 6 extent any additional steps may be necessary to ensure the preservation of relevant evidence. 7 Plaintiffs' Statement 8 Plaintiffs are aware of their document-retention obligations and have taken steps to 9 preserve relevant evidence in their possession, custody, or control. 10 Defendants' Statement 11 Defendants are aware of their document-retention obligations and have taken steps to 12 preserve relevant evidence in their possession, custody, or control 13 7. INITIAL DISCLOSURES 14 Plaintiff Davidson served her initial disclosures on August 27, 2014. Defendants served 15 their initial disclosures in the Davidson case on October 6, 2014. The parties in the Jonah case 16 have not yet served initial disclosures. Because Jonah has not served initial disclosures, and 17 because of the passage of time, the Parties have agreed to exchange updated initial disclosures 18 one week after the case management conference. 19 8. DISCOVERY 20 Plaintiffs' Statement 21 The Court entered a protective order in the Davidson case on December 10, 2014. A 22 protective order has not yet been entered in the Jonah case, but the Parties will submit for court 23 approval a protective order identical to the one the court entered in Davidson. Although in 2014 24 Davidson propounded discovery requests on Defendants and served subpoenas on third parties 25 that discovery was not completed prior to the dismissal of her First Amended Complaint on 26 December 19, 2014. After the Ninth Circuit remanded her case, Davidson propounded amended 27 interrogatories on Defendants, Defendants served responses to those interrogatories, and 28 5 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; CASE NOS. 14-CV-01783-PJH AND 15-CV-03243-PJH 4 1 Defendants served amended responses to Plaintiffs' requests for production. However, 2 Defendants have not yet produced any documents responsive to Plaintiffs' requests or searched 3 for electronically stored information ("ESI"). Plaintiffs anticipate serving requests for admission 4 and/or requests for admission of genuineness of documents. 5 In addition, Plaintiffs anticipate deposing Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). 6 Further, Plaintiffs may also subpoena third parties, including retailers of the Wipes, INDA, 7 Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry, and/or Information Resources, Inc., a company 8 that possesses data regarding retail sales of the Wipes. The parties have begun to meet and confer 9 to propose and submit an order regarding the discovery of ESI. Plaintiffs anticipate that the 10 discovery needed in Davidson and Jonah cases will be virtually identical. 11 Defendants' Statement 12 Defendants are prepared to begin producing documents responsive to Plaintiffs' requests 13 promptly upon the entry of a stipulated order regarding the discovery of ESI. Defendants intend 14 to serve document requests, interrogatories, and requests for admission and take the depositions 15 of the named plaintiffs in the Davidson and Jonah actions. To the extent Plaintiffs subpoena any 16 third parties, Defendants reserve their right to attend any depositions and take discovery of same. 17 9. CLASS ACTIONS 18 The Parties agree to the following proposed schedule for class certification: 19 Deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class February 15, 2019 20 certification and any expert report(s) in support thereof 21 Deadline for Defendants to oppose the motion for class March 29, 2019 certification and file any expert report(s) in support of its 22 opposition 23 Deadline for Plaintiffs' to file their reply in support of April 26, 2019 motion for class certification 24 Plaintiffs' Statement 25 Plaintiffs makes the following disclosures as required by N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 16-9(b). 26 Plaintiff Davidson seeks to represent the following group of similarly situated persons: All 27 persons who, between March 13, 2010 and the present, purchased, in California, any of the 28 6 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; CASE NOS. 14-CV-01783-PJH AND 15-CV-03243-PJH 4 1 following products: Cottonelle® Fresh Care Flushable Wipes & Cleansing Cloths, Scott 2 Naturals® Flushable Moist Wipes, Huggies ® Pull-Ups® Flushable Moist Wipes, and U by 3 Kotex® Refresh flushable wipes. 4 Plaintiff Jonah seeks to represent the following group of similarly situated persons: All 5 persons who, between June 8, 2011 and the present, purchased in California any of the following 6 products: Cottonelle® Fresh Care Flushable Wipes & Cleansing Cloths, Scott Naturals® 7 Flushable Moist Wipes, Huggies® Pull-Ups® Flushable Moist Wipes, and U by Kotex® Refresh 8 flushable wipes. 9 Plaintiffs contend that this action involves common questions of law and fact to the 10 potential classes because each Class Member's claim derives from the deceptive, unlawful and/or 11 unfair statements and omissions that led consumers to believe that they would be (but were not) 12 purchasing "flushable" wipes—i.e., wipes suitable for flushing down the toilet. The classes are 13 sufficiently numerous as evidenced by, inter alia, Defendants' removal of the complaints. 14 Plaintiffs are typical of the classes and both Plaintiffs and their chosen counsel will adequately 15 represent the proposed classes. Finally, the common questions of law and fact predominate over 16 individual questions, as proof of a common or single set of facts will establish the right of each 17 member of the proposed classes to recover. Among the questions of law and fact common to the 18 classes are: 19 a) Whether the Wipes are suitable for flushing down a toilet; 20 b) Whether Defendants unfairly, unlawfully and/or deceptively failed to inform 21 consumers that the Wipes were not flushable; 22 c) Whether Defendants' advertising and marketing regarding the Wipes sold to class 23 members was likely to deceive class members or was unfair; 24 d) Whether Defendants engaged in the alleged conduct knowingly, recklessly, or 25 negligently; 26 e) The amount of revenues and profits Defendants received and/or the amount of 27 monies or other obligations lost by class members as a result of such wrongdoing; 28 7 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; CASE NOS. 14-CV-01783-PJH AND 15-CV-03243-PJH 4 1 f) Whether class members are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief and, if 2 so, what is the nature of such relief; and 3 g) Whether class members are entitled to payment of actual, incidental, 4 consequential, exemplary and/or statutory damages plus interest thereon, and if so, what is the 5 nature of such relief. 6 Plaintiffs contend that the classes can be certified consistent with the requirements of Fed. 7 R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) or (b)(3). 8 Defendants' Statement 9 Defendants deny that the classes proposed by Plaintiffs can be certified under Fed. R. Civ. 10 P. 23(b)(2) or (b)(3). 11 10. RELATED CASES 12 In each of the following cases, the plaintiffs allege (or alleged) similar facts and similar 13 claims against Defendants as Plaintiffs do in this matter: 14 • Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. & Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 14-CV-1142 15 (E.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 21, 2014) 16 • Honigman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., No. 15-CV-2910 (E.D.N.Y. filed May 19, 17 2015) 18 • City of Wyoming, Minnesota v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., No. 15-cv- 19 02101-JRT-TNL (D. Minn. filed April 23, 2015) 20 • The Preserve at Connetquot v. Costco Wholesale Corp. et al., No. 2:17-cv-7050- 21 JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 4, 2017). 22 • Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. District of Columbia, 17-cv-1901 (JEB) (D.D.C. filed 23 Sept. 15, 2017) 24 • Sweeney v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. et al., 8:14-cv-3201 (M.D. Fla. filed Dec. 24, 25 2014) 26 • City of Perry, Iowa v. Procter & Gamble Co. et al., No. 15-cv-8051 (JMF) 27 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 13, 2015) 28 8 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; CASE NOS. 14-CV-01783-PJH AND 15-CV-03243-PJH 4 1 11. RELIEF 2 Plaintiffs' Statement 3 Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, compensatory 4 damages, restitution, punitive and statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and 5 costs. 6 Defendants' Statement 7 Defendants dispute that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief in this action and further 8 dispute that a class can be certified. 9 12. SETTLEMENT AND ADR 10 Plaintiffs' Statement 11 Plaintiffs are willing to engage in private mediation. 12 Defendants' Statement 13 Defendants are willing to participate in a settlement conference. 14 The Parties intend to file a Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference and will attempt to 15 schedule the ADR Phone Conference prior to the Scheduling Conference. 16 13. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES 17 The parties do not consent to having a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings 18 including trial and entry of judgment. 19 14. OTHER REFERENCES 20 At this time, the Parties do not believe that these cases are suitable for MDL treatment, or 21 reference to binding arbitration or a special master. 22 15. NARROWING OF ISSUES 23 The Parties are not aware of issues that can be narrowed by agreement or motion. 24 16. EXPEDITED SCHEDULE 25 The Parties agree that this action should not be handled on an expedited basis with 26 streamlined procedures. 27 28 9 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; CASE NOS. 14-CV-01783-PJH AND 15-CV-03243-PJH 4 1 17. SCHEDULING 2 Plaintiff's Statement 3 Plaintiffs have proposed a schedule for briefing on the anticipated motion for class 4 certification above. Plaintiffs propose that deadlines for the completion of fact and expert 5 discovery and other pre-trial deadlines be set after this Court's order on class certification, when 6 the Parties will be better able to assess the remaining discovery and experts needed. 7 Defendants' Statement 8 Defendants agree that deadlines for the completion of fact and expert discovery and other 9 pre-trial deadlines be set after this Court's order on class certification. However, given the 10 breadth of Plaintiffs' discovery requests, Defendants believe fact discovery can be closed shortly 11 after this Court's order on class certification. 12 18. TRIAL ISSUES 13 Plaintiffs requested a jury trial. The Parties believe it is premature to estimate the length 14 of trial at this time. 15 19. DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS 16 Plaintiffs' Statement 17 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-16, the undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs certifies that the 18 following listed persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including 19 parent corporations) or other entities (i) have a financial interest in the subject matter in 20 controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or (ii) have a non-financial interest in that subject 21 matter or in a party that could be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding. These 22 representations are made to enable the Court to evaluate possible disqualification or recusal. 23 Plaintiffs Jennifer Davidson and Jeff Jonah 24 Putative class members 25 Defendants' Statement 26 Defendants have filed the "Certification of Interested Entities or Persons" required by 27 Civil Local Rule 3-15. (Davidson case, Dkt. 8; Jonah case, Dkt. 8). In addition, pursuant to the 28 10 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; CASE NOS. 14-CV-01783-PJH AND 15-CV-03243-PJH 4 1 Standing Order for All Judges of the northern District of California, the undersigned counsel for 2 Defendants certifies that the following listed persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, 3 corporations (including parent corporations) or other entities (i) have a financial interest in the 4 subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or (ii) have a non-financial interest 5 in that subject matter or in a party that could be substantially affected by the outcome of this 6 proceeding: 7 1. Kimberly-Clark Corporation is a publicly held corporation. Kimberly-Clark 8 Corporation does not have a parent corporation. 9 2. No publicly held corporation owns ten percent or more of Kimberly-Clark's stock. 10 3. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kimberly-Clark 11 Corporation. 12 4. Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kimberly-Clark 13 Corporation 14 20. PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: 15 Counsel for the Parties each affirm that they have reviewed the Guidelines for 16 Professional Conduct for the Northern District of California. 17 21. OTHER MATTERS: 18 None at this time. 19 20 DATED: August 9, 2018 GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 21 22 By: /s/ Marie A. McCrary / 23 Adam J. Gutride Seth A. Safier 24 Marie A. McCrary Kristen G. Simplicio 25 Gutride Safier LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 26 San Francisco, CA 94111 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 27 28 11 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; CASE NOS. 14-CV-01783-PJH AND 15-CV-03243-PJH 4 1 TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP HASSAN ZAVAREEI 2 ANDREW JONATHAN SILVER 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 3 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 417-3658 4 SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER 5 LLP STUART E. SCOTT 6 1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 7 Telephone: (216) 696-3232 Facsimile: (216) 696-3924 8 Dated: August 9, 2018 9 10 By: /s/ Amy P. Lally / Amy P. Lally, Esq. 11 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor 12 Los Angeles, California 90067 Attorneys for Defendant 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; CASE NOS. 14-CV-01783-PJH AND 15-CV-03243-PJH 4 1 ATTESTATION 2 In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this 3 document has been obtained from the other signatories. 4 5 DATED: August 9, 2018 GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 6 By: /s/ Marie A. McCrary / 7 Marie A. McCrary 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; CASE NOS. 14-CV-01783-PJH AND 15-CV-03243-PJH