Silber et al v. Davol Inc. et al

Filing 13

ORDER Discharging 11 Order to Show Cause and Granting 4 Motion to Stay, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/18/2018. (1. The order to show cause issued May 24, 2018 (Doc. No. 11) is discharged; 2. The motion to stay filed April 24, 201 8 (Doc. No. 4) is granted; 3. This action is stayed in its entirety until the motion to transfer now pending before the MDL Panel is resolved; and 4. Defendants shall file a status report with this court every ninety (90) days advising the court of the status of the transfer motion, and will notify the court upon its resolution.)(Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

STEPHEN SILBER and DEBORAH
SILBER,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

No. 1:18-cv-00479-DAD-EPG

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AND GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY

v.
DAVOL INC. and C.R. BARD INC.,

(Doc. No. 4)
Defendants.

17
18

On April 24, 2018, defendants filed a motion to stay this case pending the resolution of a

19

motion filed by plaintiffs in this action before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

20

(“MDL Panel”), which would transfer this case and more than 50 other similar actions to the

21

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. (Doc. Nos. 4, 4-1 at 2.) Because

22

plaintiffs did not file either an opposition or statement of non-opposition in a timely manner, the

23

court issued an order to show cause why the motion should not be granted on May 24, 2018.

24

(Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiffs filed a statement of non-opposition on May 30, 2018. (Doc. No. 12.)

25

The order to show cause will therefore be discharged.

26

District courts have the inherent power to stay proceedings before them, which is

27

“incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its

28

docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am.
1

1

Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). However, “a district judge should not automatically stay

2

discovery, postpone rulings on pending motions, or generally suspend further rulings upon a

3

parties’ motion to the MDL Panel for transfer and consolidation.” Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980

4

F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997). A court must instead balance three factors: “(1) potential

5

prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is

6

not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if

7

the cases are in fact consolidated.” Id.

8
9

This motion to stay is unopposed, and it is clear that there will be no prejudice to the nonmoving party if the action is stayed. If the moving party is required to advance litigation in this

10

case prior to a potential transfer, defendants’ will be required to duplicate efforts in numerous

11

lawsuits. Finally, it would conserve judicial resources in a court that carries one of the heaviest

12

caseloads among district courts in this country to avoid unnecessary and duplicative work, in the

13

event the cases are ultimately consolidated. Cases such as this are frequently stayed pending the

14

outcome of pending transfer petitions before the MDL panel. See Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. of

15

Am., 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 809 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (collecting cases); see also Terway v. Syngenta

16

Seeds, LLC, No. 2:16–cv–01587–GMN–GWF, 2016 WL 4435745, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 19,

17

2016); Pacific Life Ins. Co. v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. SA CV 03–813GLT(ANX), 2003

18

WL 22025158, at *2–3 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2003). Therefore, the motion to stay will be granted.

19

CONCLUSION

20

For these reasons:

21

1. The order to show cause issued May 24, 2018 (Doc. No. 11) is discharged;

22

2. The motion to stay filed April 24, 2018 (Doc. No. 4) is granted;

23

3. This action is stayed in its entirety until the motion to transfer now pending before the

24

MDL Panel is resolved; and

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

4. Defendants shall file a status report with this court every ninety (90) days advising the

2

court of the status of the transfer motion, and will notify the court upon its resolution.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 18, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3