Scroggins v. Hoffman-La Roche Inc et al

Filing 32

ORDER GRANTING MYLAN DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING A DECISION ON TRANSFER BY THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION 10 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/16/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

13

ORDER GRANTING MYLAN
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS PENDING A DECISION
ON TRANSFER BY THE JUDICIAL
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT
LITIGATION

Plaintiff,

11
12

No. C 12-2615 SI

HANNAH R. SCROGGINS,

v.
HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

14

/

15
Several motions are scheduled for a hearing on July 20, 2012. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 716
1(b), the Court determines that the matters are appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and
17
VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to stay
18
all proceedings in this case pending a final decision on transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
19
Litigation. In the event Panel does not transfer this action, the Court will rule on plaintiff’s motion for
20
remand.
21
22
DISCUSSION
23
This case is one of many involving the pharmaceutical drug Accutane®, or generic versions
24
thereof, currently pending in federal court. Plaintiff originally filed this case in the Superior Court for
25
the County of San Francisco against numerous defendants. The complaint seeks damages allegedly
26
resulting from plaintiff’s use of generic versions of Accutane®. Plaintiff sued the drug manufacturers,
27
as well as McKesson Corporation, the distributor of the drug. On May 21, 2012, the Mylan defendants
28

1

removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The Notice of Removal asserts

2

that McKesson was fraudulently joined because plaintiff’s state law claims against McKesson are

3

preempted under PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011).

4

On May 25, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a Conditional Transfer

5

Order conditionally transferring this case to the Accutane MDL proceeding pending before Judge James

6

S. Moody, Jr. in the Middle District of Florida, In re Accutane (Isotretinoin) Products Liab. Litig., MDL

7

No. 1626. See Defs’ Motion to Stay, Ex. A. Plaintiff has filed a notice of opposition to the conditional

8

transfer order, and that matter will be addressed by the Panel during its session on July 26, 2012.

9

Presently before this Court are the Mylan defendants’ motion to stay the action pending its transfer to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the MDL proceeding and plaintiff’s motion for remand to state court.

11

The Court’s power to stay proceedings is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to

12

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel,

13

and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court finds that a stay

14

is in the interest of judicial economy and consistency because the identical jurisdictional issue – whether

15

state law claims against McKesson are preempted by Mensing, and thus whether removal was proper

16

– is pending before Judge Hamilton in Couture v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-2657

17

PJH. The JPML has issued a conditional transfer order conditionally transferring the Couture case to

18

the Accutane MDL.1 If both cases are transferred to Judge Moody, Judge Moody can address the

19

preemption issue in a uniform manner. While it is unclear from the record before the Court whether

20

Judge Moody has considered the precise issue presented by plaintiff’s motion to remand, Judge Moody

21

has previously dismissed state law claims against other defendants as preempted under Mensing. See

22

In re Accutane Products Liability, MDL No. 1626–IBD, No. 8:04–MD–2523–T–30TBM,

23

8:10–CV–987–T–30TBM (Plevniak), 2011 WL 6224546, (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2011).

24

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to stay this

25
26
27
28

1

The defendants have moved to stay Couture pending a decision by the JPML regarding
transfer, and the plaintiff has moved to remand the case. Judge Hamilton issued an order stating that
she will consider the motion to stay prior to considering the motion to remand, and that if she grants the
stay she will defer ruling on the motion to remand until after the JPML has decided whether it will
transfer the case. See Docket No. 28 in C 12-2657 PJH
2

1

action, Docket No. 10, and DEFERS ruling on plaintiff’s motion for remand. Docket No. 11.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: July 16, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

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