UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TIMOTHY O’CONNOR and CAROLYN O’CONNOR, Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-02495 Plaintiffs, The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam v. Jr. SYNGENTA AG, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. and DOES 1 through 60 inclusive, Defendants. JOINT STIPULATION AND MOTION FOR STAY PENDING POTENTIAL TRANSFER OF THIS ACTION BY THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION; ORDER THEREON Plaintiffs and Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (“Syngenta”) respectfully submit this joint stipulation and motion in order to request the relief described as follows: WHEREAS, Plaintiffs initiated this action on April 7, 2021, see Dkt. #1, and served Syngenta on April 13, 2021; WHEREAS, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) is currently considering a petition to transfer this and other cases into federal Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) for coordinated or consolidated proceedings under

, and has scheduled the matter for its May 27, 2021 hearing session, see In re Paraquat Prod. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 3004 (J.P.M.L. Apr. 15, 2021), ECF No. 17; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Syngenta agree that a stay pending potential MDL transfer will help ensure efficiency and judicial economy given the potential transfer of this matter in an MDL proceeding; WHEREAS, this Court has the inherent power to grant a stay, see Landis v. No. Am. Co.,

, 254–55 (1936); and WHEREAS, courts routinely stay cases pending a JPML decision in order to conserve party and judicial resources and avoid inconsistent results, see, e.g., JBR, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., No. 2:14–cv–00677,

, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 2, 2014) (“[T]his

court’s investment of resources would be a waste of judicial resources . . . . [J]udicial economy . . . weighs in favor of a stay.”; Franklin v. Prospect Mortg., LLC, No. 2:13-cv-00790,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2013) (“[A] stay would promote judicial economy and efficiency by preventing any possible duplicative efforts by this Court.”); Palmer v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. CV 07–1904,

, *1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 3, 2008) (“The Court concludes that this matter should be stayed pending a decision on MDL transfer. A stay will conserve judicial resources by avoiding duplicative litigation in the . . . districts now considering similar actions.”); Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,

(N.D. Cal. 1998) (“The purpose of such transfers is to further judicial economy and to eliminate the potential for conflicting pretrial rulings

. . . . Courts frequently grant stays pending a decision by the MDL panel[.]”); Riversv. Walt Disney Co.,

(C.D. Cal. 1997) (“If this case is consolidated with the other cases . . . this Court will have needlessly expended its energies familiarizing itself with the intricacies of a case that would be heard by another judge . . . . [A] majority of courts have concluded that it is often appropriate to stay preliminary pretrial proceedings while a motion to transfer and consolidate is pending with the MDL Panel.”); WHEREUPON, Plaintiffs and Syngenta jointly request entry of an order providing that this case, including the deadline for responsive pleadings, is stayed pending the potential transfer of this case by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. April 26, 2021 Respectfully submitted, THE MILLER FIRM, LLC GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI

/s/ Curtis G Hoke /s/ Don Willenburg Curtis G. Hoke (SBN 282465) THE MILLER FIRM, LLC Don Willenburg 108 Railroad Avenue GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI Orange, Virginia 22960 1111 Broadway, Suite 1700 Tel: (540) 672-4224 Oakland, CA 94607 Fax: (540) 672-3055 Tel: (510) 463-8688 Email: choke @ millerfirmllc.com Fax: (510) 984-1721 Counsel for Plaintiffs Email: dwillenburg @ grsm.com Counsel for Syngenta Defendants

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED So ordered this 4: y ‘day of Crtk)2021.

Honorable a S. Gilliam Jr. if UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

STIPULATION FOR STAY Case No.: 6:21-cv-04295