Kuhn v. L'Oreal USA S/D, Inc. ( 2020 )

STEVEN A. FABBRO, ESQ. SBN 107973 1 LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN A. FABBRO 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 688 2 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-6850 3 Facsimile: (415) 391-6856 E-mail: fabbrolaw2001@yahoo.com 4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: LINDA KUHN 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LINDA KUHN, ) Case Number: C 4:19-CV-04021-HSG 11 ) ) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ) TRIAL RELATED DEADLINES 13 vs. ) 14 ) ) 15 L’OREAL USA S/D, INC., MATRIX ) ESSENTIALS, INC., ULTA BEAUTY, INC., ) 16 and DOES 1 to 100, ) 17 ) Defendants. ) 18 ) ) 19 ) 20 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Linda Kuhn (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants 21 L’OREAL USA S/D, INC., MATRIX ESSENTIALS, LLC, and ULTA SALON, COSMETICS, 22 & FRAGRANCE, INC., (“Defendants”) (collectively the “Parties”) present this stipulation (the 23 “Stipulation”) to continue the trial and trial related dates. This Stipulationis submitted pursuant 24 to Local Rule 7-1, Local Rule 7-12, and Local Rule 40-1. The Parties stipulate, pursuant to Local 25 Rule 7-12, as follows: 26 27 28 Page 1of 5 1 1. This action arises out of a complaint for personal injuries which alleges that 2 Plaintiff Linda Kuhn suffered physical injuries when a certain container of Matrix Biolage Dry 3 Shampoo (the “Product”) and/or its contents and/or component parts exploded in an area 4 adjacent to where she was standing and severely injured her foot. 5 2. It is alleged that Plaintiff was visiting her daughter in San Francisco at the time of 6 the injury. Plaintiff has since returned her home located in Cleveland, Ohio. 7 3. It is further alleged that the Product was purchased by Plaintiff’s daughter at 8 Defendant Ulta Salon, Cosmetics, & Fragrance, Inc.’s San Francisco retail location. 9 4. Defendant Ulta Salon, Cosmetics, & Fragrance, Inc. principal place of business is 10 in State of Illinois. 11 5. Defendants L’Oreal USA S/D, Inc. and Matrix Essentials, LLC’s principal places 12 of business are in the State of New York. 13 6. Prior to this matter being removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), 14 Defendants L’Oréal USA S/D, Inc. and Matrix Essentials, LLC propounded discovery in the 15 form of Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, 16 and a Request for Statement of Damages. Plaintiff timely responded to this discovery thereafter. 17 7. The parties have exchanged their respective Rule 26 Initial Disclosures. Plaintiff 18 has propounded written discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 26 and 34. 19 The parties are engaged in meeting and conferring regarding Defendants’ responses thereto. 8. The parties submitted to the Court theirRule 26(f) Discovery Plan. Following a 20 Case Management Conference, this Court issued its Scheduling Order assigning, inter alia, a 21 close of fact discovery date of May 29, 2020 and Trial date of November 30, 2020. (Docket No. 22 37) 23 9. The Parties have not had reasonable opportunity to complete discovery. The 24 Parties have been diligently engaged in conducting discovery, including obtaining third party 25 records via subpoenas, and have exchanged initial written discovery. However, the Parties still 26 have further discovery to conduct in order to facilitate resolution of this case. The Parties intend 27 28 Page 2of 5 1 to depose approximately fifteen (15) witnesses in this action and require additional time to 2 coordinate the depositions of said various witnesses with the calendars of all counsel1. Several of 3 these witnesses are believed to reside out of state in the States of Ohio, Illinois, and New York 4 whom will need to be served with deposition subpoenas to compel their attendance. 5 10. Additionally, due to national concerns regarding the spread of the COVID-19 6 Virus, counsel for the Parties anticipate that domestic air travel will be suspended and/or 7 witnesses will not be amenable to attending any depositions until the concerns are alleviated. 8 Counsel for the Parties also understand the courts nationwide are taking numerous preventive 9 measures, including cessation of court proceedings. Due to these nationwide concerns, the 10 Parties anticipate that there will be additional delays in conducting depositions. As noted herein, 11 numerous witnesses are located in States of California, Ohio, Illinois, and New York. Counsel 12 for the parties are located in San Francisco, CA, necessitating air travel for any depositions 13 occurring in the States of Ohio, Illinois, and New York, and special social distancing precautions 14 for those depositions occurring in the State of California. 15 11. Mediation of the case was conducted on January 31, 2020. The case did not settle 16 but the parties are hopeful that additional discovery may facilitate case resolution. 17 12. The Parties would be prejudiced if the Court did not grant the relief requested in 18 this Joint Motion. The Parties stipulate to the relief sought herein in good faith and not for the 19 purpose of delay. 13. The Federal District Courts have “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” 20 (Little v City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Circ. 1988)). 21 14. This Court has authority to continue trial pursuant to Local Rule 40-1, which 22 provides as follows: 23 “No continuanceof a scheduled trial date will be granted except by order 24 of the Court issued in response to a motion made in accordance with the 25 26 1 The majority of the issued subpoenas pertain to medical records. Additionally, many of the depositions will be of healthcare providers including hospital workers whose availability will likely be limited given increased hospital 27 occupancy rates, even if the parties were to agree to conduct the depositions by video. The parties recognize that it will likely be more challenging to obtain these records and deposition dates in light of the COVID-19 virus. 28 Page 3of 5 provisions of Civil L.R. 7. Failure of a party to proceed with the trial on 1 the scheduled trial date may result in the assessment of jury costs and the 2 imposition of appropriate sanctions, including dismissal or entry of default. Jury costs may be assessed for failure to proceed with a scheduled 3 trial or failure to provide the Court with timely notice of a settlement.” 4 15. The Parties stipulate, pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, to the following: 5 a. To extend the close of fact discovery from May 29, 2020 to September 29, 2020; 6 b. To extend the close of expert discovery from June 12, 2020 to October 16, 2020; 7 8 c. To extend the deadline for hearing of dispositive motions from July 30, 2020 to December 3, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.; 9 d. To continue the Pretrial Conference date from November 10, 2020 at 3:00 PM to 10 March 9, 2021 at 3:00 PM; 11 e. To extend the 5-Day Jury Trial date from November 30, 2020 to March 29, 2021 at 12 8:30 a.m. 13 14 Dated: April 24,2020 LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN A. FABBRO 15 16 17 /s/ Steven A. Fabbro____________________ 18 STEVEN A. FABBRO, ESQ. Counsel for Plaintiff Linda Kuhn 19 20 21 Dated: April 24,2020 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 22 23 /s/ J. Dominic Campodonico_________________ 24 J. DOMINIC CAMPODONICO, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants L’ORÉAL USA S/D, INC., 25 MATRIX ESSENTIALS, LLC, ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & 26 FRAGRANCE, INC. 27 28 Page 4of 5 ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: __4/27/2020 Le ud THE U.S. DISTRICT yt ° Page 5 of 5 STIPULATION AND [PROPROGSEB] ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND TRIAL RELATED DEADLINES C 4:19-CV-04021-HSG