Green, et al., v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al

Filing 17

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting 9 Motion to Stay.(sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ROBERT L. GREEN, et al., For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 Plaintiffs, v. 12 14 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, MCKESSON CORPORATION, and DOES 1 TO 100, 15 Defendants. 13 ) Case No. C 13-1489 SC ) ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ) STAY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 16 17 Now before the Court is Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb's 18 ("BMS") motion to stay these proceedings pending transfer of this 19 action to the Plavix MDL, ECF No. 9 ("MTS"), and Plaintiffs' motion 20 to remand, ECF No. 13 ("MTR"). 21 relate the instant action to Caouette v. Bristol-Myers Squibb 22 Company, Case No. 12-cv-01814-ECM (the "Caouette Action"), which is 23 currently pending before Judge Chen in this District. 24 Action Dkt. No. 75. 25 14 ("Opp'n"), 16 ("Reply"), and appropriate for determination 26 without oral argument, Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 27 below, the Court stays this matter, including its consideration of 28 Plaintiffs' motion to remand, pending a determination on whether There is also a pending motion to Caouette The motion to stay is fully briefed, ECF Nos. For the reasons set forth 1 the case should be transferred to the Plavix MDL or related to the 2 Caouette action. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the Court is to consider the following: (1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation. 11 Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 12 1995). 13 The Court finds that these factors favor staying this action. 14 A stay would not prejudice Plaintiffs because it will likely be 15 short and Plaintiffs' motion to remand could also be heard by Judge 16 Chen or as part of the Plavix MDL. BMS would not be burdened 17 because it is moving for the stay. Staying the case would promote 18 judicial economy and uniform decision-making since the motion to 19 remand filed in this case raises jurisdictional issues identical to 20 those raised in a number of other cases filed against BMS in this 21 District. 22 transferred to the Plavix MDL, where they can be decided in a 23 consistent and efficient manner. 24 inconsistent with the interests of non-parties or the general 25 public. 26 Judges Seeborg, Illston, Henderson, and Gonzalez Rogers in this 27 District, granting motions to stay pending determination of whether 28 other cases filed against BMS should be transferred to the Plavix All of these cases might be related before Judge Chen or Finally, a stay would not be This reasoning is consistent with recent decisions by 2 1 MDL or related before Judge Chen. 2 12-05752 SI, C12-6426 TEH, 12-CV-5941 YGR. 3 See Case Nos. C 12-05208 RS, C Plaintiffs argue that the Court should rule on their motion to 4 remand prior to considering the motion to stay. 5 based in part on a February 12, 2013 decision by the Judicial Panel 6 on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") declining to transfer certain 7 matters to the Plavix MDL. 8 "[U]ntil the remand motions are decided, the basis or bases on 9 which the actions were properly removed 'assuming removal was Opp'n at 6-7. The JPML explained: 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California Opp'n Ex. C at 4. This argument is proper' are unclear." But the JPML's concerns 11 stemmed from the fact that these actions had been removed from 12 state court as "mass actions" under the Class Action Fairness Act 13 ("CAFA"). In this case, BMS did not remove under CAFA. 14 For these reasons the Court GRANTS Defendant Bristol-Myers 15 Squibb's motion to stay and STAYS this matter pending determination 16 of whether it should be transferred to the Plavix MDL or related 17 before Judge Chen. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 22 Dated: May 1, 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 3