No. 16-1513 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ________________ PLIVA, INC., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY (JERRYANN MILLER, Real Party in Interest), Respondents. ________________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District ________________ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION ________________ MARK G. CRAWFORD MARK P. ROBINSON, JR. Counsel of Record ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. SKIKOS, CRAWFORD, 19 Corporate Plaza Drive SKIKOS & JOSEPH LLP Newport Beach, CA 92660 1 Sansome St., Ste. 2830 (949) 720-1288 San Francisco, CA 94104
[email protected] (415) 546-7300
[email protected] For Real Party in Interest August 16, 2017 LEGAL PRINTERS LLC, Washington DC ! 202-747-2400 ! legalprinters.com i COUNTERSTATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED The present petition presents an identical question to the pending petition brought by Petitioner PLIVA, Inc.’s sister company, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (No. 16-1364) PLIVA and Teva’s petitions arise out of the same coordinated proceeding pending since 2010 and involving numerous plaintiffs and manufacturers and distributors of name-brand and generic metoclopramide, and now is on the verge of resolution by settlement agreements amongst the parties. As with Teva, the trial court determined twice that PLIVA explicitly consented to personal jurisdiction and waived personal jurisdiction challenges in Real Party’s case based on the lengthy historical record in the case. This Court previously denied certiorari review of these issues in 2016 as to both PLIVA and Teva (No. 15-1209), and the law on consent and waiver has not changed since then. It is not the law in dispute here, but rather the trial court’s determination of the facts.