Kinney et al v. Bristol-Myers Squib Company et al

Filing 45

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting (34) Defendants' Motion to Stay in case 3:12-cv-04477-EMC; and granting (31) Defendants' Motion to Stay in case 3:12-cv-04478-EMC; staying litigation pending decision by MDL Judicial Panel re Conditional Transfer Order (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 SANDRA L. KINNEY, et al., 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiffs, v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, et al., 12 13 Defendants. ___________________________________/ 14 No. C-12-4477 EMC RELATED TO No. C-12-4478 EMC No. C-12-4615 EMC No. C-12-4616 EMC No. C-12-4617 EMC No. C-12-4619 EMC No. C-12-4633 EMC No. C-12-4641 EMC No. C-12-4642 EMC No. C-12-4803 EMC AND ALL RELATED ACTIONS. 15 16 17 __________________________________/ ORDER STAYING LITIGATION PENDING DECISION BY MDL JUDICIAL PANEL RE CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER 18 19 20 Currently pending before the Court is a motion to stay filed by Defendants Bristol-Myers 21 Squibb Co., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., and Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc. 22 (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants have filed this motion to stay in not only the Kinney case 23 identified above but also in nine other cases that have been related to it or to the earlier Caouette 24 case over which this Court presided. Defendants have asked the Court to stay proceedings in these 25 cases pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation as to whether the cases – 26 currently subject to a conditional transfer order – should be part of the Plavix MDL (MDL No. 27 2418) or remain with the Northern District of California. 28 1 For the reasons stated on the record at the April 11, 2013 hearing herein and for the reasons RS; Vanny, No. C-12-5752 SI ; and Arnold, No. C-12-6426 TEH), the Court agrees that a stay is 4 warranted. A stay will not prejudice Plaintiffs as a remand motion can just as easily be presented to 5 and decided by the transferee judge, especially where as here, the remand motion turns on, not on a 6 unique issue of state law, but instead on a question of federal law – i.e., whether the claims against 7 McKesson are preempted. Moreover, a stay likely would not last long; the parties anticipate the 8 conditional transfer issue will be decided shortly after May 30, 2013. Finally, the Court agrees with 9 Judges Seeborg and Illston that “the MDL Panel’s initial concern with transfer is not the motion to 10 remand, as plaintiffs have suggested, but an issue involving CAFA, which has since been resolved.” 11 For the Northern District of California stated by Judges Seeborg, Illston, and Henderson in their respective cases (Aiken, No. C-12-5208 3 United States District Court 2 Vanny, No. C-12-5752 SI (Docket No. 32) (Order at 3). 12 13 Accordingly, the Court hereby stays proceedings in the above-referenced cases until further order of the Court. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: April 12, 2013 18 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?