Montiqueno Corbett and Rob Dobbs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pharmacare U.S., Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedNovember 10, 2025
Docket3:21-cv-00137
StatusUnknown

This text of Montiqueno Corbett and Rob Dobbs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pharmacare U.S., Inc. (Montiqueno Corbett and Rob Dobbs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pharmacare U.S., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Montiqueno Corbett and Rob Dobbs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pharmacare U.S., Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONTIQUENO CORBETT and ROB Case No.: 3:21-cv-00137-JES-AHG DOBBS, individually and on behalf of all 12 others similarly situated, AMENDED ORDER AWARDING 13 BILL OF COSTS TO DEFENDANT Plaintiffs, 14 v. [ECF No. 282] 15 PHARMACARE U.S., INC., 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Retax Costs. ECF No. 282. 20 Defendants filed an opposition. ECF No. 283. Plaintiffs filed a reply. ECF No. 284. On 21 September 24, 2025, the Court held oral arguments and took the matter under submission. 22 ECF No. 290. 23 Plaintiffs argue that costs should be allocated between this matter and the related 24 case Sunderland v. PharmaCare U.S., Inc., No. 3:23-cv-01318-JES-AHG (“Sunderland”). 25 Plaintiffs’ argument is partially premised on an agreement by the parties submitted to the 26 Court on May 20, 2024, in which the parties agreed that certain depositions in this matter 27 could be used in the Sunderland case, specifically that Plaintiffs could use the depositions 28 of Defendant and its employees taken in this matter and that Defendant could use the 1 deposition of NIS taken in this matter. Sunderland, ECF No. 52. Defendant counters that 2 the parties never agreed to allocate costs between the two cases. 3 Further, Plaintiffs cite three cases to support their argument, Winter v. Novartis 4 Pharms., Corp., 739 F.3d 405 (8th Cir. 2014), Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs. 5 Inc., 569 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and Camarillo v. Pabey, No. 2:05-CV-455 PS, 2007 6 WL 3102144 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 22, 2007). The Winter case allocated costs between cases 7 because it was one of 650 cases in multidistrict litigation that was only consolidated for 8 pre-trial proceedings and discovery. Winter, 739 F.3d at 411-12. The Ortho-McNeil 9 Pharm., Inc. case allocated costs between cases because it was one case conducting joint 10 discovery in multiple cases pending in different districts. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc., 569 11 F.3d at 1357-58. The Camarillo case allocated the proportionate costs requested by 12 Defendants of 32 witness depositions since many of the witnesses were also relevant to 13 some of the other cases against the Defendants. Camarillo, 2007 WL 3102144, at *3. In 14 each of these cases the court was concerned with double recovery and a potential windfall 15 if the Defendants later sought recovery in full in another case. 16 Here, both cases are being adjudicated in this district and both are before this Court. 17 The Court notes that the Sunderland case was filed on July 18, 2023, and the discovery 18 stipulation was entered on May 20, 2024. Sunderland, ECF Nos. 1, 52. The Court has 19 reviewed the record in this case, including the excerpts of the deposition transcripts of 20 Arthur Rowe-Cerveny, Adeline Lam, Maria Paulino, Dr. Keith Ugone and Professor 21 Ronald T. Wilcox. Further, the Court notes that all of the requested costs were incurred in 22 this case prior to the stipulation in Sunderland. The cases Plaintiffs cited above all were 23 concerned about double recovery or a potential windfall, because there were multiple cases 24 before different judicial officers and in different districts. That is not the case here. The 25 Court acknowledges that some of the depositions are relevant in both cases, but considering 26 that all of the costs were incurred prior to the stipulation being reached and the fact that 27 this Court will ensure that no double recovery or windfall occurs, the Court ORDERS 28 1 $25,388.28 in costs to Defendant PharmaCare U.S, Inc. The Court will not award any of 2 || the requested costs in this case in the Sunderland case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 || Dated: November 10, 2025 Wa +1, 6 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Montiqueno Corbett and Rob Dobbs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pharmacare U.S., Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montiqueno-corbett-and-rob-dobbs-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-others-casd-2025.