In re Sutter Health ERISA Litigation

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OBALEET SARGONY, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01007-NONE-BAM Plaintiffs, ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, v. CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT, AND SUTTER HEALTH, et al., CONFERENCE Defendants.

CHRISTINA BONICARLO, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01795-JAM-AC Plaintiffs,

v.

SUTTER HEALTH, et al.,

Defendants.

On October 22, 2020, counsel filed a stipulation seeking to consolidate Obaleet Sargony, et al. v. Sutter Health, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01007-NONE-BAM and Christina Bonicarlo, et al. v. Sutter Health, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01795-JAM-AC. (Doc. No. 23.) The parties’ stipulation further requested that (1) plaintiffs be granted leave to file a consolidated complaint; (2) the Court set a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss; (3) any future cases relating to the subject matter of the consolidated cases be automatically consolidated with the above-captioned cases by the Clerk of Court; (4) the Court appoint Lead Plaintiffs for the putative class; and (5) the Court appoint Co-Lead Interim Counsel for the putative class. Having considered the parties’ requests, the stipulation is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows. Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” In exercising its discretion, the court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, the court finds that the above-captioned actions involve the same or similar parties, claims, and questions of fact or law, and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and duplication of proceedings. Thus, good cause exists to grant the parties’ stipulation and consolidate these cases. The parties have further stipulated to allow plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint to serve as the operative complaint in the consolidated action. In light of the consolidation of the above-referenced cases and in order to avoid unnecessary cost and delay, the Court finds that plaintiffs should be allowed to file a consolidated complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(3). Additionally, the Court will set a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss as requested by the parties. The remainder of the parties’ stipulation is denied. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Obaleet Sargony, et al. v. Sutter Health, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01007-NONE- BAM and Christina Bonicarlo, et al. v. Sutter Health, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01795-JAM-AC shall be consolidated for all purposes, including trial, pursuant to Rule 42(a); 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order in Obaleet Sargony, et al. v. Sutter Health, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01007-NONE-BAM and Christina Bonicarlo, et al. v. Sutter Health, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01795-JAM-AC; 3. All future filings shall be in the lead case Obaleet Sargony, et al. v. Sutter Health, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01007-NONE-BAM. No further filings shall be made in Christina Bonicarlo, et al. v. Sutter Health, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01795-JAM-AC. Future captions should indicate the lead case number 1:20-cv-01007-NONE-BAM; 4. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, plaintiffs may file and serve a consolidated complaint within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. Defendants’ response to the consolidated complaint shall be filed and served within sixty (60) days of filing and service of the consolidated complaint. Opposition to any motion to dismiss filed by Defendants shall be due within thirty (30) days of filing of the motion and any reply shall be due within twenty-one (21) days of filing of the opposition; and 5. The Initial Scheduling Conference currently set for 11/19/2020 is CONTINUED to March 18, 2021, at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before the undersigned. If the parties determine that an earlier Initial Scheduling Conference would be suitable to the needs of the case, they should submit an appropriate request to advance the conference, including suggested dates on which the parties will be available to hold the conference. A Joint Scheduling Conference Report, carefully prepared and executed by all counsel, shall be electronically filed in full compliance with the requirements set forth in the Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference (Doc. No. 3) one (1) full week prior to the Scheduling Conference, and a copy shall be emailed, in Word format, to bamorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The parties may appear at the Scheduling Conference by telephone with each party suing the following dial-in number and passcode: dial-in number 1-877-411-9748; passcode 3219139.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE