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

Filing 34

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/14/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

JAMES T. AIKEN, et al.,

No. C 12-05208 RS

12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15

v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
MCKESSON CORPORATION, and DOES
1-100,

16
Defendants
17
v.
18
19

JONATHAN KESSLER et al.,
____________________________________/

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants move to stay proceedings pending transfer to the Plavix MDL or, in the
alternative, pending a decision by Judge Chen to relate this action to the other Plavix actions in this
District. Plaintiffs oppose any stay of this matter, arguing it will inconvenience plaintiffs and
impede the efficient administration of justice. Further, they assert the MDL Court, in its initial order
denying transfer of the action, indicated it wants this Court to rule on the pending motion to remand
before the panel considers any further transfer motion.
On February 12, 2013, the MDL Court issued an order denying transfer of those matters on
Schedule B, as they present the “unusual dilemma” of having been removed on multiple grounds,
“including that they are ‘mass actions’ under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).” Opening B.
NO. CV 12-05208 RS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

1

Ex. B and Opposition B. Ex. 3. Following this Order, defendants moved to withdraw CAFA as a

2

grounds for removal. Subsequently, on February 20, 2013, the MDL panel issued an order

3

conditionally granting transfer for those matters that had earlier been denied transfer. Opening B.

4

Ex. C.

5

Courts in this and other jurisdictions regularly stay actions pending transfer to an MDL,

6

including actions with motions to remand pending. See, e.g., Scroggins v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.,

7

No. C 12-2615 SI, 2012 WL 29006574 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2012) (staying litigation pending transfer

8

to Accutane MDL in the “interest of judicial economy and consistency” while a motion to remand

9

was pending); In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 360 F.Supp.2d 1352, 1354 (J.P.M.L. 2005) (“The

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

pendency of a motion to remand to state court is not a sufficient basis to avoid inclusion in Section

11

1407 proceedings.”); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 170 F.Supp.2d 1346,

12

1347 (J.P.M.L. 2001) (ordering transfer over plaintiff’s objection as “remand motions can be

13

presented to and decided by the transferee judge.”).

14

A stay in this case will promote uniform decisions on important, recurring issues. See

15

Kinney v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No 12-4477 EMC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012); Belinda v. Bristol-

16

Myers Squibb Co., No. 12-5941 YGR (N.D. Cal. Jan 22, 2013). A stay will not prejudice plaintiffs,

17

as they can reassert their motion to remand with the MDL Court, should it be transferred. Further,

18

the MDL Court made clear its concern with transfer was not the pending motions to remand

19

themselves, but the role that CAFA played in removal of this action from state court. As CAFA has

20

been revoked as a grounds for removal, this concern is no longer at issue. Accordingly, this matter

21

shall be stayed pending a decision by the MDL Court to transfer this case. The clerk is instructed to

22

vacate all currently calendared dates.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/14/13
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

NO. CV 12-05208 RS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

2