Jeff Jonah v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation et al

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

RELATED CASE ORDER. C-15-3243 EMC AND C-14-1783 PJH ARE RELATED. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 7/22/15.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JENNIFER DAVIDSON, Case No. 14-cv-1783-PJH 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. RELATED CASE ORDER 10 KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 Defendants in the above-entitled action have filed a motion for administrative relief 15 to consider whether Jonah v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., C-15-3243 EMC should be related to 16 the present case. Plaintiff in the Jonah action opposes the motion. As the judge 17 assigned to the Davidson case, I find that the more recently-filed Jonah case is related to 18 the case assigned to me. 19 The two actions concern the same defendants and the same claims regarding the 20 same products, and concern substantially the same transaction or event. While the 21 plaintiffs are not the same, and the respective complaints were filed on different dates – 22 Davidson on March 13, 2014, and Jonah June 9, 2015 – each plaintiff seeks to represent 23 the same class, with the exception of the fact that the class period in Davidson starts on 24 March 13, 2010 (four years before the filing of the complaint in that case), while the class 25 period in Jonah starts on June 9, 2011 (four years before the filing of the complaint in that 26 case). Thus, the class periods substantially overlap. Moreover, based on the claimed 27 dates of purchase of the products at issue, each plaintiff will be a member of each class 28 (in the event any class is certified). 1 The parties are instructed that all future filings in any reassigned case are to bear 2 the initials of the newly assigned judge immediately after the case number. Any case 3 management conference in any reassigned case will be rescheduled by the court. The 4 parties shall adjust the dates for the conference, disclosures and report required by 5 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26 accordingly. Unless otherwise ordered, any 6 dates for hearing noticed motions are vacated and must be re-noticed by the moving 7 party before the newly assigned judge; any deadlines set by the ADR Local Rules remain 8 in effect; and any deadlines established in a case management order continue to govern, 9 except dates for appearance in court, which will be rescheduled by the newly assigned 10 judge. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Dated: July 22, 2015 14 __________________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2