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)
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?